Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Tuesday 23 May.

GREENHAM AND CROOKHAM COMMONS BILL (BY ORDER)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday 23 May.

BILL PRESENTED

RAILTRACK (WAVERLEY STATION) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Mr. Secretary Reid presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 8 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Railtrack (Waverley Station): And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Wednesday 24 May, and to be printed [Bill 124].

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

China

Mr. John Wilkinson: If he will make a statement about the UK's bilateral relations with the People's Republic of China. [120870]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): We pursue a strategy of critical engagement with China. That enables us to pursue a dialogue in depth with another permanent member of the Security Council on a range of issues of mutual anxiety, such as global climate change, nuclear non-proliferation and regional tensions such as those in south Asia. At the recent round of human rights dialogue, agreement was reached on a visit to discuss abolition of the death penalty, a joint working group on implementation of the two United Nations covenants, which China has signed since the start of dialogue, and on a visit to Tibet by the all-party Tibet group.
However, we remain deeply concerned about the persistent violation of human rights in China, especially the continuing arrest of political dissidents and detention without trial.

Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for that reply. Is he also concerned about the unlawful behaviour of the police during the official visit of President Jiang Zemin, when they snatched banners and Tibetan flags from protesters after they had been briefed six or seven times by Foreign Office officials? Does he take pride in the fact that the United Kingdom failed to co-sponsor the resolution of the United States of America—that freedom-loving nation—to the United Nations Commission for Human Rights to protest against human rights violations in China and Tibet?

Mr. Cook: We did not sponsor the resolution. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we voted against the Chinese motion of no action, which was carried. We did not sponsor the resolution partly because we did not understand the purpose of handing China a victory on its motion of no action year after year. However, when Europe discussed the matter, we expressly said that our decision in future years would be weighed against the progress that is achieved in the human rights dialogue with China.
On the hon. Gentleman's other question, I noted what the Metropolitan police said in their submission to the court. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman noted that the statement stressed that the police facilitated a highly visible and loud protest on subsequent occasions when President Jiang Zemin was present. I re-emphasise that the Foreign Office made no request to the police to confiscate flags.

Mr. Ben Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that China is a colossus on the world stage—whether in terms of the environment, whether in terms of global security, or whether in terms of its general geo-political importance—and that it is important to maintain a dialogue with it? Does he also agree that, in that context, President Jiang Zemin's visit was important and successful?

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend sets out clearly and eloquently why it is important for Britain and other major world players to be able to hold frank and open dialogue with China and to start from the perspective of taking each other's views seriously.
I want to stress one of the points that I made in my initial answer. On current projections, China will produce as many greenhouse gases as the United States in the next generation. In those circumstances, it is vital that we engage constructively with China on stabilising the global climate.

Zimbabwe

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What representations he has received calling for the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth. [120871]

Mr. Philip Hammond: What actions Her Majesty's Government have taken to convey their disapproval of recent events in Zimbabwe. [120875]

Mr. Andrew Robathan: If he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the situation in Zimbabwe. [120884]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): We deplore the continuing violence in Zimbabwe and the persistent failure of its Government to guarantee the rule of law and to respect its citizens' rights to freedom from political intimidation.
I regret that the Government of Zimbabwe have rejected every reasonable proposal for international help with a fair programme of land reform. We deplore the continuing threats against commercial farmers, who provide one of the essential pillars of the economy in Zimbabwe and its main access to foreign currency. If President Mugabe persists with his threats to confiscate farms without compensation, he will sentence the economy of Zimbabwe to isolation and his Government to international condemnation.
Today, Don McKinnon, who is the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, and a team from the European Commission are in Harare to agree the terms under which international election observers can be deployed. I hope to speak to Don McKinnon tomorrow. The talks have already obliged President Mugabe to announce last night the date for elections on 24 and 25 June.
I have stressed in the Commonwealth and the European Union that election observers must be deployed immediately. No election can be free and fair unless political parties can campaign without repression and voters can go to the polls without fear. Not only Britain but the world is watching and monitoring the conduct of the elections. For our part, Britain will do everything possible to ensure that the people of Zimbabwe can choose their future in freedom and without fear.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I thank the Foreign Secretary for that complete and strong answer. Does he agree that the situation has been moved on by the announcement of the date of the elections on 24 and 25 June and that the priority now is to get a Commonwealth team of observers into Zimbabwe to ensure that proper voter registration lists are drawn up, that proper constituency boundaries are sorted out and that the elections are free and fair? Does he also agree that intimidation should cease now?

Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for expressing his support, and I utterly echo and endorse his demands. On the teams of election observers, I am pleased to tell the House that it appears that the Secretary-General has reached agreement with President Mugabe. If that agreement is also achieved by the European Union, we would expect that both the Commission and the Secretary-General will leave behind in Harare today the nucleus of a team of observers, and we will certainly work to get it up to full strength as soon as possible.

Mr. Hammond: Foreign Office Ministers have previously said that a military coup is a precedent for

suspension from the Commonwealth. If Mr. Mugabe reneges on his promise of elections, or if those elections are patently unfair, and he remains in power beyond the constitutional time limit, will the Foreign Secretary give a commitment that Britain will regard that as the equivalent of a military coup and immediately seek Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth?

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman slightly understates the opportunities available under the Millbrook action programme, which provides for the suspension of Governments who are in power unconstitutionally from the councils of the Commonwealth. Whether the Government of Zimbabwe find themselves in that position in future will crucially depend on the conduct of the elections. That is why we shall watch with great care the report of the international observers and why we shall press the Commonwealth ministerial action group to pay particular attention to the conclusions of the Commonwealth's observers.

Mr. Robathan: When I read the screen at 1 o'clock this afternoon, I was surprised to discover that my question had been grouped; I had had no notification of that.
I, too, welcome the strong tone of the Foreign Secretary's comments, but actions speak much louder than words. Why do not we suspend the British military training team that is currently in Zimbabwe? Why do not we suspend all aid to Zimbabwe? President Mugabe is a pretty authoritarian dictator, whatever past elections may have shown, and is involved in murder, so why do not we send him the message that we will not tolerate such behaviour or continue to support his regime?

Mr. Cook: With respect, we have sent such a message repeatedly, and I have just done so again today. On aid, I have repeatedly told the House that I would be extremely reluctant to take steps that made the position of the poor in Zimbabwe even more miserable than it is already under President Mugabe. I do not see the sense, from our own national interest, of suspending the very large programme that we have combating AIDS in a country where a quarter of the population is HIV-positive. However, if the elections are not free and fair and if the political violence does not moderate, a lot of options will be on the table, and we shall keep many of those issues under review.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: I welcome all that my right hon. Friend has said today and all the efforts that he and his colleagues have made through the international community to try to resolve the very difficult situation in Zimbabwe, but does he recall vividly, as I do, that during the 18 years of the previous Government not only were we isolated in Europe, as is well known, but British policy on southern Africa was, quite disgracefully, frequently totally isolated in the Commonwealth? Will he therefore be wary of instant Opposition experts on such problems and continue with the strategy of working with our partners in the international community to resolve those very difficult problems?

Mr. Cook: It is fair to say that one of our strengths in the current crisis in Zimbabwe is the universal support that we have had from many of the Commonwealth African leaders, especially President Obasanjo of Nigeria,


who has been robust in his criticism. I know that his support for our views and his strong support for democracy reflect the fact that he knows that the Government substantially supported the case for democracy in Nigeria during the years of military rule. The support that we are mustering from others in the Commonwealth reflects the fact that they know that we take the Commonwealth seriously.

Mr. Donald Anderson: President Mbeki of South Africa, whom we shall welcome to this country later this week, has spoken of an African renaissance. Is not part of the tragedy that follows the brutal actions of President Mugabe, in encouraging the squatting and deaths, the fact that such a vision becomes less possible? Investment will dry up, and so much damage has already been done that it will be very difficult to restore the basis of confidence that is essential for that African renaissance.

Mr. Cook: I think the tragedy of what is happening in Zimbabwe, and the publicity that necessarily surrounds it, is that it is obscuring some of the success stories of Africa and the general trend towards higher standards of democracy there. I believe I have spoken to all the leaders of the countries surrounding Zimbabwe, and it is fair to say that there is widespread alarm not just about the situation in Zimbabwe, but about the impact that it will have on the region if it is not brought under control.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I endorse all that my right hon. Friend has said about the situation in Zimbabwe, not just today but in recent weeks, but may I press him on the issue of the British military advisory training team? The House should be given the clear message that that team does invaluable work, not just in Zimbabwe but throughout southern Africa, and that calls for it to be dismantled would be counterproductive in a huge range of countries.

Mr. Cook: I echo my hon. Friend's praise for the work done by the training team, whose commitment extends throughout the region. It is much valued by Zimbabwe's neighbours, and we would not want to take any step that would make them feel that Britain was reducing its commitment to the region or to the countries themselves. However, if our observers come back and say that the election was pursued with violence and political intimidation, we may well have to review the team's location.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is not the Foreign Secretary right to exercise some caution with regard to suggestions of immediate suspension—not least because of the attitude of Mr. Tsvangirai, president of the Movement for Democratic Change, who has courageously sought to continue to argue a case for democratic change but who, in this context, has cautioned against any early effort to suspend Zimbabwe because of the weapon that that might well hand Mr. Mugabe in the coming election?
As we are talking about suspension, can the Foreign Secretary tell us what rather tortuous process allowed the Foreign Office to move from suspension of the export of military equipment and arms to what I now understand to be cancellation of the licences? That is welcome to many Members, but there is residual anxiety about why it took

so long. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary would like to place in the Library of the House the changed legal advice that he received, which enabled him to make the decision that he announced at the end of last week.

Mr. Cook: As I told the right hon. and learned Gentleman a week ago, I defer to his superior knowledge of the flexibility of legal advice. I can only welcome his support for the actual outcome.
On the question of sanctions, I spoke to Mr. Tsvangirai again at the weekend. As I have been accused by President Mugabe and others of backing Mr. Tsvangirai, let me put it on record that I am not backing any candidate in the election, but I am certainly backing the demand by Mr. Tsvangirai and the opposition for a free election process in which they can present their views. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct: Mr. Tsvangirai is not calling for sanctions, which he thinks would play into Mugabe's hands in the current circumstances, helping him to fulfil his ambition to stage a confrontation as an election backdrop. I think everyone understands, however, that if the elections are not free and fair, the international community will have to reassess the position.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: One of the reasons given for restricting the amount that can be given to the Zimbabwe Government for land purchase and the compensation of white farmers is that existing land has been reallocated to the cronies of President Mugabe. Could my right hon. Friend publish the evidence for that? I think the detail would help the advancing of the case.

Mr. Cook: I am pleased to say that the information is published. Indeed, it is published in the Zimbabwean Parliament, with answers from the Government of Zimbabwe. It details that, over the past three years of the commercial farm programme, half the farms have gone to employees of the public sector, or to people with connections with the Government. We have always stressed that we are willing to help to fund a fair land reform programme, but that it must be within the rule of law, involve a fair price for the farmer and, importantly, help the landless poor, not those who have the right connections.

Mr. Francis Maude: I strongly agree with the Foreign Secretary's insistence that the elections that have now been announced in Zimbabwe must be open, free and fair. It is only a few weeks until polling. We know that for many weeks there has been systematic intimidation of opposition activists and voters, with whole villages told that there will be vicious reprisals against the village unless it returns a ZANU-PF candidate.
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that even if observers could start tomorrow—as we hope they will be able to do—their ability to ensure a fair election has already been massively compromised because of the intimidation that has already happened? Did not his failure to engage the Commonwealth early enough in the process allow Mugabe to believe that he could get away with it? Has not his softly, softly approach given Mugabe breathing space in which to intimidate his way through the election?

Mr. Cook: First, may I say that I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman's characterisation of the political violence of the past few weeks. I said to the House a week ago that the current position in Zimbabwe had already compromised the prospect of a truly fair and free election. Nevertheless, the Opposition are united in demanding that international observers be admitted as soon as possible in the hope that that will inhibit some of the worst of the brutality. That is why we are doing everything possible to get those election observers in as quickly as possible, hoping that it may contribute towards a fairer climate of elections. As to what conclusion they come to, I will wait for their result.
I am disappointed, particularly given the exchange that I have just had with the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), that the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) continues to complain that we have not taken tough enough sanctions. He has just heard me say that the Opposition leader, whose life is on the line, does not want us to take those sanctions because it would be counterproductive.
I add that, when the Opposition leader came to see me four weeks ago, he came fresh from meeting the right hon. Gentleman. He told me that he had said to him that he wanted bipartisan support for the British position and did not want him to play party politics. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman did not take that advice. It is the one thing that the Opposition of Zimbabwe have asked him to do.

Mr. Maude: Does not the Government's reluctance to put pressure on Mugabe, now an established law breaker, contrast with the Government's attitude to another Commonwealth African country—Sierra Leone? Is it not now clear that it was a mistake to pressure President Kabbah into pardoning Foday Sankoh last year, giving him a whole new power base from which to organise further violence and killing? Did the Foreign Secretary see the remarks of the Nigerian negotiator, Dr. Fayemi? He said:
We called it the pact with the devil.

Madam Speaker: Order. We are not on the right country. For all that, would the Foreign Secretary like to make some comment? We are dealing with Zimbabwe. I know that the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) was trying to make a comparison, but it was not close enough.

Mr. Cook: I am grateful, Madam Speaker, but the right hon. Gentleman has made a serious allegation and I believe that I must be allowed to rebut it. The agreement that was reached at Lomé was brokered by ECOWAS. It was signed and witnessed by ECOWAS and by the Organisation of African Unity. We were not party—

Mr. Gerald Howarth: What is ECOWAS?

Mr. Cook: I do not know what Conservative Members are doing discussing Sierra Leone if they do not know what ECOWAS—the Economic Community of West African States—is. We were not party to that agreement. Nor did we pressure President Kabbah to sign it; far from it—the peace agreement was wildly popular in Sierra

Leone. It has also enabled us to drive a wedge between the rebels, which is why the former army of Sierra Leone is fighting against Sankoh, not alongside him.
Coming back to the matter under discussion, I conclude by saying that I note with regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not taken this opportunity to take the advice of the Opposition leader in Zimbabwe and give us the bipartisan support that would give greater strength to our protest.

Japan

Mr. Huw Edwards: If he will make a statement about Britain's relations with Japan. [120872]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): We have a close and strategic partnership with Japan based on strong trade and investment ties, a shared interest in a peaceful and prosperous world, and a commitment to expanding the already wide range of people-to-people links.
I should also like to take this opportunity to express our sadness at the death, at the weekend, of former Prime Minister Obuchi. We offer our condolences to his family.

Mr. Edwards: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Does he agree that the Government's positive attitude to Europe is one of the reasons why there is so much Japanese investment in Britain? Does he also agree that the reason why there is so much Japanese investment in Wales is the success of the Welsh Development Agency—whose chairman is currently in Japan, trying to enlist more Japanese investment in Wales? I should also point out that next year will be UK-Japan year, which will allow an opportunity to reinforce the United Kingdom's tremendous links with Japan.

Mr. Vaz: I am delighted to agree with my hon. Friend. As he knows, more than 40 per cent. of Japanese investment in the European Union comes to the United Kingdom because of our strategic position in Europe. As he will also know, 56 Japanese companies are prospering in Wales because of the Government's policies and the activities of the Welsh Development Agency—starting with Sony, in 1973.
I should like to thank my hon. Friend for his links with the Japanese Parliament. I know that he is a member of the House of Commons rugby team, which frequently has matches with the Japanese, and that, at the most recent match, the House team beat the Japanese—no doubt because he was playing.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Given that, under the United States-Japan security treaty, Japan is the mother port for the US seventh fleet, on which the security of the whole region depends, what obligations does Britain have in the event of an attack on Taiwan from the Chinese mainland?

Mr. Vaz: Relations between the United States of America, Japan and the United Kingdom are excellent—we are all members of the G8—and I am sure that those excellent relations will continue.

Burma

Mr. Tony Colman: What steps he is taking to promote democratic rights in Burma. [120873]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): We are deeply concerned at the brutality of the military in Burma, the systematic use of forced labour and the displacement of ethnic minorities. Within the European Union, Britain recently proposed measures that have toughened Europe's common position against the regime in Burma. Within the International Labour Organisation, we have vigorously supported the decision to invoke article 33—for the first time in the organisation's 80-year history—against Burma.
During my visit to Thailand last month, I took the opportunity to visit a refugee camp for those who had been forced out of Burma by the military. I pledged to them that we would not relax our pressure on the regime in Burma until it respected the democratic rights of all the people of Burma.

Mr. Colman: I thank my right hon. Friend not only for that action by the Government, but for the further action that he has taken in encouraging Premier Oil to withdraw its investment and stop its work in Burma. In the past day, we have seen newspaper reports of Premier Oil's admission, at its annual general meeting, that democratic abuses have occurred in Burma. Has the Secretary of State had discussions with Björn Stigson, chief executive of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development—which represents all the major multinationals and is greatly concerned about democratic rights in the countries where multinationals work—to determine the possibility of organising an investment boycott by multinationals in Burma? Such a boycott would ensure that if, as I hope, Premier Oil steps out of Burma, other multinationals do not step in.

Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion. We shall pursue that with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. I have already raised the issue with my colleagues in the European Union. I noted with interest what was said at Premier Oil's annual meeting yesterday. I fully understand the concerns of the shareholders about the investment in Burma. We have called on Premier Oil to consider whether withdrawing from Burma would be consistent with its legal responsibilities. It is important that the company should consider withdrawing, because if it continued with its development it would produce a revenue stream that would be available to buttress a regime that is in great difficulty.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Yesterday, Baroness Scotland, the Foreign Office Minister in another place, announced that the presence of reputable companies in Burma does not help the democratic cause. The Foreign Secretary has just said that it is now official Foreign Office policy to lean on reputable companies trading in Burma, such as Premier Oil. When the Minister wrote to Premier Oil pressurising it to pull out of the country, did the Foreign Office also write to other companies trading in Burma, such as HSBC, GEC and BAT, asking them to pull out? If that

policy applies to Burma, why does it not apply to other countries with similar human rights records, such as Algeria, Cuba and China—or is this yet another example of the double standards practised by a Foreign Secretary who has made a mockery of the words "ethical" and "moral"?

Mr. Cook: Premier Oil is way ahead of all the rest of British investment in Burma added together. It also publicly claimed that the Foreign Office had told the company that we did not have a view. If it wishes to go public on that, it cannot complain if the Foreign Office takes care to make plain its view on the matter. As for the hon. Lady's last point, if she took the time and the courtesy outside the House to speak to the Burma Campaign or to make contact with any of the many people such as those whom I saw in Thailand who had been evicted from Burma, she would understand full well why we have adopted our policy on human rights in Burma.

Southern Africa

Mr. David Borrow: What steps he is taking to promote trade with and economic development in southern African countries. [120874]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): I pay tribute to my hon. Friend on his successful visit to Botswana and his discussions at the headquarters of the Southern Africa Development Community. Through British Trade International, we continue to alert British business to the many commercial opportunities in southern Africa, including a major three-year trade and investment campaign for South Africa.

Mr. Borrow: Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the effects of the illicit diamond trade in southern Africa? Is he aware that Mr. Sankoh, the leader of the rebellion in Sierra Leone, was recently planning a diamond deal in southern Africa to fund his murderous campaign?

Madam Speaker: Order. The question is about southern Africa.

Mr. Borrow: I was asking my hon. Friend whether he was aware of the role of the illicit diamond trade in southern Africa. I was giving a current example of the contact between the rebel leader in Sierra Leone and diamond dealers in South Africa, which is enabling Mr. Sankoh to fund his murderous rebellion in Sierra Leone. Does not that demonstrate that the Government's policy of campaigning against blood diamonds is correct and the role of British troops in Sierra Leone should be supported?

Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend and congratulate him on his ingenuity and expertise in raising this important matter. There are many important diamond operations in southern Africa—in Namibia, South Africa and Botswana—that contribute enormously to the economic success of those countries. We back them, but we totally oppose the blood diamond trade in places such as Angola and Sierra Leone because it continues to fuel the conflicts in those regions. That is why we are pressing


for an international self-certification scheme by the diamond trade, backed by Governments, to stop the trade in blood diamonds and ensure that dreadful conflicts such as the one that we are seeking to resolve in Sierra Leone at the moment are not perpetuated. It is the diamond trade that keeps them going.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Can the Minister describe the new arrangements that he, the Foreign Office and Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry are making for the promotion of trade with southern Africa?

Mr. Hain: Through British Trade International, which is a freshly launched agency, we are taking several initiatives to promote such trade and investment. In a recent speech in Durban—sorry, in Cape Town—[Interruption.] I shall make a speech on the economic opportunities for trade and investment in southern Africa in Durban next month, if the Opposition can contain themselves. Those initiatives are partly why President Mbeki is visiting London with South African ministerial colleagues, including the Trade Minister, in the next few days for a high-level meeting.

British Trade International

Mrs. Helen Brinton: If he will make a statement on the role of British Trade International in securing inward investment into the UK. [120876]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): The Invest in Britain Bureau is the Government organisation responsible for the promotion of the whole of the United Kingdom for inward investment. In response to the Wilson review of export promotion, we are examining the relationship between British Trade International and the IBB, but have not reached a decision on whether to change that relationship.

Mrs. Brinton: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reply. Can he assure me that any new arrangements will promote increased export opportunities for, and increased investment in, the eastern region—including, of course, my constituency of Peterborough? Will his Department closely monitor the success of those arrangements?

Mr. Vaz: I can reassure my hon. Friend that that is what any new arrangements will do. The matter is still under review, but British Trade International and the IBB work extremely hard to ensure that the opportunities for investors in Peterborough are made well known to those who wish to invest in the United Kingdom. I thank my hon. Friend for all the excellent work that she does in supporting local firms in Peterborough in winning new markets throughout the world.

Mr. John Redwood: The bureau has presided over an increase mainly because the previous Government kept our tax rates and regulatory costs well below those on the continent and this Government have not frittered all of it away yet. Will the Minister assure us that he and his colleagues will veto the measures in the draft treaty of Nice that would create a centralised Government in Brussels capable of increasing business taxes and regulatory costs in this country? Or will we see,

when it comes to a centralised Europe, that, as with Sierra Leone, the Foreign Secretary is the living embodiment of mission creep?

Mr. Vaz: Nobody could give us better advice on creeping than the right hon. Gentleman. As he well knows, the United Kingdom is the number one location for inward investment anywhere in Europe because of the policies of this Government. We have low taxes and a stable economy under the leadership of a superb Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is very different from the policies of the previous Government. Inward investment in the UK last year reached £244.1 billion—a record level—because of the policies of this Government which make people want to invest here.

Mr. Bill Rammell: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the key factors in determining inward investment is Britain's position in the European Union? If we were to follow the policies of the Opposition in indefinitely postponing a decision on the single currency and taking the approach of a step-by-step withdrawal from the EU, that inward investment and those British jobs would be lost.

Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend, who is much more knowledgeable than the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on these matters, is absolutely right. There is no question that the step change initiative by the Prime Minister, adopted when the Government were elected in 1997, has made a tremendous difference to Britain's position in Europe. We are fully engaged in Europe, as was seen at the recent Lisbon summit, which moved the European Union on to the irreversible path to economic reform. Some 40 per cent. of inward investment in Europe from both Japan and the United States of America, and 50 per cent. of inward investment from Korea, comes to the United Kingdom. Those countries choose to come here because of our pivotal role in the European Union.

Mr. Richard Spring: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that over four years our trade deficit will double to by far the highest level in our history, due to both our manufacturing imbalance and the Government's vast £10 billion increase in red tape and taxation on our businesses? Does he therefore agree that British Trade International needs all the support that it can get because of the Government's truly shameful record on trade and the soaring cost burdens?

Mr. Vaz: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman had prepared his supplementary question before he heard what I had to say about the statistics. I do not think that £244.1 billion of inward investment last year is shameful. That investment is at a record level, which means that it is an enormously successful outcome. Of course we support British Trade International; Sir David Wright does an excellent job. That is why we are examining the arrangements that will provide a better service for companies that wish to invest in the United Kingdom.

India

Mr. Michael Jack: What his policy is on arms sales to India. [120877]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): India is set to be a 21st century super-power, and British-Indian relations, including commercial and defence links, are very strong. All export licence applications to India are considered on a case-by-case basis against the European Union code of conduct and strict United Kingdom national criteria.

Mr. Jack: I thank the Minister for that positive reply. Will he comment on recent, and what appear to be authoritative, press reports that indicate that BAE Systems has at long last secured a contract with the Indian Government for the supply of 60 Hawk aircraft? If such a contract were to be agreed between the company and the Government, would the United Kingdom see such an arrangement as compatible with an ethical foreign policy?

Mr. Hain: Indeed it would be compatible, because those Hawk jets are for training purposes, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. I commend him for his interest and support in this matter; I think that he has British Aerospace workers, interests at heart.
I raised the matter when I visited India in November. The same matter was raised, and the Indian Government were pressed on it, by my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office during his recent visit. We want to ensure that this £1 billion deal is successful. I cannot confirm the reports to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I hope that the contract will be successful.

Mr. Steve McCabe: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement. Does he agree that it would be entirely inappropriate for any military hardware from the United Kingdom to be used by the Indian authorities in Kashmir? Do the Government still expect the Indian authorities to develop a policy on Kashmir that takes full account of the wishes and needs of the Kashmiri people?

Mr. Hain: Despite our close friendship and partnership with India, we pay particular—and more than usual—attention to export licence applications for arms for India. We want to ensure that any arms that we sell for legitimate purposes are not used for illegitimate purposes in Kashmir. We have constantly pressed both the Indian and Pakistani Governments to resume the Lahore process and the dialogue there to achieve peace in Kashmir and so end a terrible conflict.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the House is grateful to the Minister for supporting the arms industry within the United Kingdom. However, will he consider an urgent case in my constituency? Thorn is trying to sell cable to the oceanographic department in India, which will be used to look for oil. It was told originally that it probably did not need an export licence. However, having pressed the Government after months of delay, the project has now been turned down.
The cable can be used for detecting submarines, but that has nothing to do with Kashmir. In fact, it will be used for a peaceful purpose. Will the Minister examine this urgent case and ensure that jobs for peaceful purposes while using defence technology, which surely is what we all want to do, go ahead and are not turned down by the Government?

Mr. Hain: I will certainly look into the case, if I can, and I will respond to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible. I realise that submarines have nothing to do with Kashmir, even under a Conservative interpretation. However, there is always a problem with technology that has dual uses. Technology that appears to be for legitimate civilian uses, as seems to be the case with the example that the hon. Gentleman quoted, can also be used for illicit military purposes. That is why we examine each case very carefully.

Afghanistan

Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: If he will make a statement on the Government's relations with Afghanistan. [120878]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): We strongly support the efforts of the United Nations and others to bring peace to Afghanistan and to secure a negotiated settlement that will lead to a broad-based Government committed to stability. That Government should also be committed to putting an end to terrorism, drugs production, drugs trafficking and human rights violations, especially violations against women and girls.

Mr. Sarwar: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Afghanistan is in a sensitive area of the world. Does he agree on the importance of encouraging dialogue across the region to bring an end to the suffering of the Afghan people?

Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend—it is why we energetically support United Nations' efforts to achieve peace and stability. However, the Taleban Government in Afghanistan deserves strong criticism for harbouring terrorists, such as Usama bin Laden, who contribute to instability in the region. They also deserve criticism for continuing with the policy of pulling up crops and planting poppies. That fuels the drugs trade—90 per cent. of the heroin coming into Britain comes from Afghanistan. The Taleban Government should be indicted for those policies, and we will continue to criticise them for that reason.

South and North Korea

Ms Sandra Osborne: What steps he is taking to promote dialogue between South and North Korea. [120880]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): We have consistently supported South Korea's policy of engaging North Korea. Through a series of talks with North Korea, we have repeatedly encouraged that country to respond positively to engagement.

Ms Osborne: Will my hon. Friend send a message of support to the Governments of North Korea and South Korea as they embark on the process of dialogue? Given the example of East and West Germany, would it not be a great success if Korea could find its way to unity after decades of cold war division?

Mr. Hain: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. We welcome the announcement, to which she referred, that the leaders of North and South Korea plan to meet at a summit in June. We urge both sides to make effective use of the opportunities for dialogue and co-operation that the summit presents.

Mr. John Bercow: Does the Minister understand that it is not immediately obvious why a junior Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister in the United Kingdom should think it incumbent upon him to promote dialogue between North and South Korea? However, if the Minister wishes to take on such very important responsibilities, will he also take the opportunity unequivocally to condemn those Labour Members of Parliament who, throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, supported North Korean communist front organisations? Will he therefore apologise to the Government and the people of South Korea?

Mr. Hain: Some interventions from Conservative Members are really off the wall, but that one takes the prize. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the past activities of hon. Members, will he also condemn the activities of those Conservative Members who called for Nelson Mandela to be hanged, and who wore badges to that effect when they were members of the Federation of Conservative Students?
I am astonished at the hon. Gentleman's irresponsibility with regard to North Korea. That country has missiles, which it exports. It is very important that we promote peace and dialogue between North and South Korea to ensure that there is stability in the region.

Iran

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: What recent discussions he has had with the Government of Iran concerning the treatment of Jews, Christians and Bahais. [120881]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): We and our European Union partners have regularly raised with the Iranian authorities our concerns over a number of human rights issues, including the treatment of religious minorities in Iran.

Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the 13 Jews on trial in Iran on what appear to be trumped-up charges of espionage have not been allowed to appoint their own legal counsel, and that their state-appointed lawyers have complained of obstruction? My hon. Friend highlighted Iran's recent record of discriminating against Christians, Bahais and Jews. Will he assure the House that he will continue to press the Iranian authorities to show proper respect and tolerance to all religious groupings in that country?

Mr. Hain: Yes, we will. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his energetic work on this matter—I know that he reflects the views of many of his constituents, including members of the Jewish community who are, quite rightly, worried about the way in which the trial is proceeding, as we are. That is why my right hon. Friend and I have consistently raised the matter with Iranian Ministers and will continue to do so. Although we engage with the reforming Government of President Khatami and welcome his electoral success, which has boosted the position of the reformers, we are also aware that there is a battle with the reactionaries, who are bringing their odious influence to bear on this trial.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the point that the Minister has just made. Will he emphasise to the Iranian Government that they cannot take their place in international affairs when they sponsor terrorism for Islamists elsewhere while persecuting their own citizens?

Mr. Hain: It is precisely because of the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman, which we share, that in our discussions with the Iranian Government—and we have established a good relationship for critical engagement and dialogue—we speak not just about business opportunities but about human rights violations.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Does my hon. Friend agree that for a woman in Iran, it is not required to be a Christian, Jew or Bahai to be persecuted? Will he discuss this aspect of human rights when he next has contact with the President?

Mr. Hain: I well understand the point raised by my hon. Friend. I would say that the treatment of women in Iran is by no means the worst across the world, but we continue to raise the issue.

Mr. David Winnick: It is bad enough.

Mr. Hain: It is bad enough, as my hon. Friend says, and I freely acknowledge that. It is precisely because we have established a relationship of critical engagement and dialogue that we are able to make these points, and have them heard. Indeed, human rights in Iran have improved over the past few years despite these setbacks, and we should acknowledge that. It is terribly important that the reform process under President Khatami is strengthened and continued and that Britain supports that reform process, because Iran is a critical country for the stability of the region.

Mr. Graham Brady: Will the Foreign Secretary consider postponing his scheduled visit to Iran in July, unless and until such time as a fair trial is guaranteed to the 13 members of the Jewish community who have been arrested and are facing trial?

Mr. Hain: My right hon. Friend's visit has already been postponed once—[Interruption.] Be serious; some of the heckling from the Conservative Benches on this matter is ridiculous.

Madam Speaker: Order. I do wish that Back Benchers would contain themselves when questions are being answered.

Mr. Hain: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
We keep all visits under review at all times.

Slovenia

Mr. Paul Flynn: What proposals he has to improve the UK's relations with Slovenia. [120882]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): The relationship between the United Kingdom and Slovenia is excellent. We maintain a close dialogue over Slovenia's applications for European Union and NATO membership, and warmly welcome the constructive role that Slovenia is playing in south-east Europe.

Mr. Flynn: As a signatory to the Council of Europe's charter on minority languages, will my hon. Friend commend the exemplary action of Slovenia in its treatment of those linguistic minorities within its border, which, regrettably, has not been reciprocated to the Slovene minorities in Austria or Italy? Italy has long delayed introducing measures that would assist the Slovene minorities there. In the Carinthia province of Austria, the Governor, a certain Jorg Haïder, has recently introduced measures that are damaging to the bilingual Slovene schools.

Mr. Vaz: I welcome the action taken by Slovenia to protect minorities. My hon. Friend raises with me for the first time the position of Slovene speakers in Austria, and I will pass on that information.
We want Slovenia to be part of the European Union as quickly as possible. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that it has opened 25 of the 31 chapters of the acquis communautaire and has closed 11 chapters. Therefore, there are good prospects that Slovenia will join as soon as possible, and we encourage that. Of course, there will be tough negotiations ahead, but I hope that Slovenia will bring to the EU the issues to which my hon. Friend referred. It will certainly bring to it a country that has a diverse number of minority groups which live together extremely well.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that the United Kingdom encourages Slovenia in those endeavours, in respect not only of the European Union, but of NATO? What steps are being taken through Partnership for Peace and other NATO organisations to assist Slovenia to play a bigger role?

Mr. Vaz: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very constructive comments. I am glad to know that he fully supports Slovenia's entry into the European Union and NATO. We have made our position on NATO clear: it is that all aspirants are part of the action plan that has been set out by NATO. I can give no guarantees here about who will join NATO. That is a matter for NATO at its next invitation meeting, at its next major summit.

However, the fact is that we want to make sure that Slovenia is part of the Europeanisation process that will bring it into the European Union and ensure that it is part of NATO's security arrangements. That will be a beacon of hope to other countries in the region, especially the Balkans.

Mr. Francis Maude: Does the Minister realise that it is a bit patronising for him to talk about the Europeanising of Slovenia, which happens already to be a European nation? Given that one of Slovenia's principal aims is membership of the European Union, as well as membership of NATO, is not the best contribution that the Government can make to improving relations with Slovenia to reject out of hand the ideas propounded last week by Mr. Fischer, the German Foreign Minister, about the creation of a single European super-state? What countries such as Slovenia want is the creation of a modern, flexible European Union of the sort that would also appeal to the British public—in particular, by tackling the common agricultural policy, which is the major obstacle to the early enlargement of the European Union.

Mr. Vaz: I need no lessons in being patronising from the right hon. Gentleman, who could give seminars on how to be patronising.
The fact is that Slovenia wants to be a first-class member of the European Union—it does not want two classes of membership, it wants to be a full member. What the Conservative party and the right hon. Gentleman suggest is that there should be a two-tier Europe. Slovenia is not interested in that. It wants to be a full member, participating absolutely fully in what the European Union does.
We have made our position on Mr. Fischer's speech absolutely clear. It was a speech that he made personally, in his own capacity, and he did not state the policy of the German Government. Our position on this matter is also absolutely clear. We believe that Europe is a nation of nation states. Slovenia wants to be part of that.

Middle East

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: If he will make a statement on progress in the middle east peace process. [120883]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): I returned yesterday from a visit to Damascus and Beirut. I was encouraged by a Syrian and Lebanese commitment to comprehensive peace in the region. Both made it clear that full Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon, in compliance with United Nations Security Council resolution 425, would be welcome. I encouraged them to work with the United Nations to ensure stability in Lebanon during and after withdrawal.

Dr. Starkey: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Does he agree that the core of the middle east peace process is the Israeli-Palestinian track? Is not he concerned at the multiple signs of a decreasing confidence among Palestinian public opinion in the peace process?


Signs of that include an open letter to the Israeli public by 130 Palestinian intellectuals; the disturbances across the west bank yesterday and over the past week, which culminated in the death of Palestinians, including Palestinian police; and recent opinion polls within the Palestine National Authority which show that President Arafat's popularity rating is at an all-time low and that only 13 per cent. of Palestinians have confidence in the ability of Prime Minister Barak to deliver a peace process.
Has my hon. Friend stressed to the Israeli Government the need for them to take seriously the issues of refugees, illegal settlements and Jerusalem, so that an eventual agreement delivers real benefits to ordinary Palestinians, has their support and is therefore sustainable?

Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend. We are concerned at the serious violence yesterday in the west bank and Gaza strip, and call on both sides to show calm and restraint. Efforts should be focused on moving negotiations forward towards a just, comprehensive and lasting peace. I welcome the Israeli Government's decision to transfer three Palestinian villages east of Jerusalem to full Palestinian control, and look forward to its early implementation. Further courageous decisions by both sides will be needed if the shared goal of a comprehensive agreement is to be realised.

St. Helena

Mr. Bob Russell: What progress has been made with preparatory work for legislation to restore full British citizenship to residents of the island of St. Helena. [120885]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): Our White Paper last year set out our commitment to extend full British citizenship to all citizens of our overseas territories. That has been warmly welcomed throughout the overseas territories, particularly in St. Helena where it is seen as correcting an injustice. Officials of the Foreign Office and the Home Office are at an advanced stage of preparing instructions to parliamentary counsel, and we hope shortly to proceed to the drafting stage of a Bill. Pending legislation, we have already taken steps to improve access to the United Kingdom for citizens of St. Helena, such as the new three-year visas for employment or work experience.

Mr. Russell: I welcome that statement. Does the Foreign Secretary realise that next year marks the 20th anniversary of the previous Conservative Government making the citizens of St. Helena second-class citizens? In two years time, on 23 May, it will be the 500th anniversary of the discovery of the island. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that by then full citizenship rights will have been restored to the islanders?

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House for long enough to know perfectly well that no one can give a guarantee about legislation until the announcement of the Queen's Speech. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who has just joined me on the Front Bench, will make sure that I do not even attempt to give such a guarantee. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are aware of that injustice and that we are determined to put it right.

Defence Procurement

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on two significant defence procurement decisions.
I should like to announce our decisions on a new beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile to arm the Eurofighter, and on delivering the major enhancements to our strategic airlift capability promised in the strategic defence review.
The Government are committed to the modernisation of our armed forces. We are determined to deliver improvements in defence capability, to underpin long-term security and to ensure that Britain can act as a real force for good in the world. Our armed forces deserve the best equipment. We are committed to ensuring that they have the best equipment. However, we are also committed to doing that in a cost-effective way that offers the best value for taxpayers' money. Smart procurement means making every pound count.
We are also aware of the wider context. The procurement package we have selected is clear evidence for our partners on both sides of the Atlantic of our strong commitment to enhance European defence capabilities. NATO's effectiveness depends on continuing technological improvement and on equitable burden sharing. The European defence initiative lies at the heart of that—for the good of Europe, the transatlantic alliance and the international community as a whole.
The BVRAAM is a vital component of the Eurofighter's ability to dominate the skies. It promises to be a highly accurate, highly manoeuvrable missile that will significantly improve Eurofighter's "no escape" zone, and will thus ensure that this world-class aircraft can combat all projected air threats. It will make a major contribution to the air superiority requirements of UK and coalition operations—including NATO operations. Our priority is to sustain Eurofighter's superior capability as far as possible into its service life, which will extend well towards the middle of the century. We need to secure the highest performance, at the best overall value for the taxpayer.
We have had the advantage of a strong competition with high-quality bids from Matra BAE Dynamics and Raytheon Systems Ltd. The competition has been keenly fought, and many right hon. and hon. Members have written to me and to other Ministers.
After a thorough—indeed exhaustive—process, we have concluded that the Meteor missile offered by Matra BAE Dynamics and its consortium is likely best to meet our needs over the life of the Eurofighter aircraft. The overall performance promised by Meteor will ensure that Eurofighter is equipped with the best weapon possible and will deliver the air superiority that is central to success in military operations.
Meteor is a collaborative venture with Germany, Italy and Spain—our Eurofighter partners—France and, we hope, Sweden. We plan to conclude a memorandum of understanding with those European partners by the end of the year, formally committing us all to the programme. Subject also to agreement of satisfactory terms and conditions with Matra BAE Dynamics, we will award a contract as soon as possible.
It will be a smart contract. Tightly defined breakpoints in the contract will be linked to flight tests and other demonstrable achievements. Those will focus on, first, the ram-jet motor; then guidance systems and, finally, data links and electronic counter-measures. Specific dates will be attached to each.
Those breakpoints will be auditable and capable of external independent evaluation. If they are not delivered, the contract will be terminated by the partner nations, which will recover all development costs from the contractor.
Meteor is expected to enter service with the RAF in the latter half of this decade. Meanwhile, we intend to buy more of the currently highly capable advanced-medium-range air-to-air missile, produced by Raytheon, to equip Eurofighter when it first comes into service.
Our decision will give the Royal Air Force the most advanced air-to-air missile in the world. It will be welcome to our European partners, and it will also be welcomed by our US allies as a clear indication of our commitment to a strong defence capability, available for all operations in which the United Kingdom might be involved.
Industry in the United Kingdom will also welcome the decision. Matra BAE estimates that it will create or sustain some 1,200 jobs in the UK, including at Stevenage, Bristol and Stanmore. Many of those will be high-quality jobs in new technology, and in system and software design. The United Kingdom will lead this major project.
I turn now to our strategic airlift requirements. Improving the mobility and deployability of our forces was a key theme of the strategic defence review. Events in the Balkans and, more recently, in Mozambique and Sierra Leone have underlined the high priority of increasing our strategic airlift capability. Both NATO's defence capabilities initiative and the headline goal adopted at the Helsinki European Council identify this capability as one in which Europeans need to make particular improvements.
We have explored a number of possible avenues to meet our immediate needs as well as the longer-term requirements. After careful consideration, we have determined that the best short to medium-term solution is a lease of four C17 Globemaster aircraft from the Boeing company. They will begin the first of several years of service with the RAF from the middle of next year. These flexible, capable aircraft will deliver vital, early support to our new joint rapid reaction forces. They will also make a crucial contribution to improving the airlift capabilities available for NATO and European operations and to interoperability with the United States.
Beyond that short-term lease, we have now decided that our heavy-lift needs, from the latter part of this decade onwards, would be best met by the A400M aircraft from Airbus Military company. This promises to be a superb aircraft—a new design that is specifically tailored to meet our military requirement. Moreover, the A400M will offer an extremely flexible capability, covering both the tactical and strategic roles. It offers scope for a multinational support package and substantial through-life cost savings.
At this point, our commitment to A400M is necessarily conditional, in that it is based on assumptions that are dependent both on our potential partners and on Airbus—on their commitments to sufficient numbers of aircraft at launch and the establishment of a viable programme.


We hope that we can sign a contract for the A400M urgently, but this must be based on realistic figures for purchase. All countries must balance the size of firm commitments against other priorities for defence equipment. The United Kingdom will order 25 aircraft in the A400M initial launch. That is sufficient to build a viable programme while safeguarding our industrial interests. We look forward to other partners following our lead, so that together we may confirm the launch order as soon as possible.
However, affordability will also rest on confirmation of unit prices at the level offered by Airbus, commitment of the in-service date that we require and satisfactory negotiation of commercial terms and conditions. Programme launch and contract placement must also be achieved within a reasonable time frame.
This will also be a smart process. We will hold European industry to its promises. If Airbus cannot offer us and our partners an affordable and manageable programme on that basis, we will be able to meet our military requirement and protect taxpayers' interests by purchasing a fleet of Boeing C17 aircraft as an alternative. However, we look forward to success in this exciting and innovative programme.
A400M will offer great benefits for the United Kingdom. BAE Systems expects the programme to create directly 3,400 long-term, high-skill, high-wage jobs—in particular at its sites at Filton, Broughton and Prestwick—with indirect employment taking the figure to more than 10,000.
Our industry will be at the forefront of developments in the aircraft's new technology, including a carbon composite and metallic hybrid wing and a new propulsion system. The project will strengthen the European aerospace industry, and will complement the world-leading wing capabilities of British industry, which we are supporting through the major investment that we have recently announced for the development of the A3XX.
A vital and technologically innovative element of the A400M will be its engines. Airbus Military, as prime contractor, will be responsible for selecting the best power plant so that the aircraft will meet its commitments to the partner nations on performance and price. However, we will make sure that, in its decision, Airbus Military takes full account of the merits of the likely proposal from Rolls-Royce and the undeniable quality of its products.
These procurement decisions are of great importance for our armed forces and for our defence capability for several decades to come. They deliver on our promises in the strategic defence review. They make a significant contribution to Europe's defence capabilities and they are good news for British industry and for British jobs. I commend them to the House.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I thank the Secretary of State for his announcement and for giving me an early copy of his statement. Today's announcement has at last begun to clarify the important procurement decisions in, for example, the strategic defence review, on which so much of our armed forces future capability rests. Giving Typhoon a proper air-to-air missile to keep it a potent

weapon system and providing heavy lift to allow our troops to be properly deployed were critical elements of the strategic defence review, as the Secretary of State will recall.
Before putting questions to the Secretary of State, I should like to make a general point. Surely, the decisions could, and should, have been made earlier. Is it not a fact that too many Ministries have a finger in the pie, especially the Treasury? As a result, the decisions have been delayed, perhaps unnecessarily. The Government committing themselves to early decisions while insisting that industry produces on time and within budget is a feature of smart procurement. If, as seems to be the case here, the Government fall at the first significant hurdle, what hope is there for future smart procurement programmes?
The Government made two significant announcements today. Their decision to go ahead with the purchase of Meteor as a solution to their BVRAAM requirement will be widely welcomed. I therefore congratulate Matra BAE Dynamics on its successful bid, which, it believes, will secure high-quality technology-related jobs for some time. However, questions need to be asked. Given the doubts that the Secretary of State expressed about Sweden in his statement, has he received cast-iron assurances from all the other partners who are likely—or whom he believes are likely—to order the missile?
The Meteor contract is to produce equipment at the cutting edge of technology. The Secretary of State accepts that and has made it clear that that entails some risks. He outlined his concerns about those risks today, saying that he has set specific dates by which the progress of the programme can be audited. Critically, he has said that the programme will be terminated if those are not met.
Is the Secretary of State prepared to tell us what those dates are so that we can judge whether the programme is proceeding in accordance with the plans? He spoke about how compliance with that programme was going to be audited. Given the changes that he has announced to the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, who does he expect to carry out the independent audit, which, in the past, DERA might well have carried out?
Bearing in mind the fact that the United Kingdom is bearing the largest share of the costs, what will happen if a British Government wish to terminate a programme which they consider is not being met, but which others do not? How can we make a such a decision without incurring penalties? How will we recoup costs in that eventuality and what plans has the Secretary of State made for that?
The Secretary of State was rather vague about the in-service date. Will he clarify that detail by putting it on record when he returns to the Dispatch Box? He said that much had been said about US embargoes on future export orders. No doubt, that is one reason why we chose Meteor in the circumstances. What consideration has been given to the possibility of partners in the consortium embargoing others wishing to sell the missile on? The Secretary of State said that the USA would welcome the order. However, given that the President has lobbied the Prime Minister over the past few months, to what extent is this another case of the Foreign Office giving the Secretary of State a load of bad advice?
On the heavy lift contract, we welcome the Secretary of State's announcement on leasing four C17s while placing an order for 25 A400M aircraft. Once again,


however, serious questions need to be answered. On the A400M, how confident is the Secretary of State that the other nations will order, either at all or in sufficient numbers to make the project viable? I note, for example, that the Italians have not only dropped the initial number that they were planning to order, but seem recently to have indicated doubts about ordering any at all. The Germans have been blowing colder and colder on the project as the weeks have gone by.
Is not the announcement of an order of 25 a significant reduction from the UK's anticipated commitment of 45? Will not that, coupled with the lease of four C17s, send a message to nations that are in doubt about their orders that the UK Government are not as committed as they at first appeared? For example, what has the Secretary of State been told about the critical number that needs to be ordered before the contract is viable? How long is the lease for the C17s?
The Secretary of State seems slightly less than positive in his announcement on the A400M, hedging it with many caveats and conditions. Will not that, together with his announcement that he will purchase C17s if he cannot reach an agreement on the A400M, also send a mixed signal to our European partners? Is not his announcement in some senses likely to pose serious logistical questions to the RAF? Surely the prospect of the RAF having to find spares, relevant infrastructure and training for three different air frames raises questions about costs beyond purchase costs. How will the C17s be supported? Will there be a support facility in the UK, or is he anticipating that that task will be done from the USA?
In congratulating BAE Systems on securing the order, the Secretary of State must agree that such questions will need to be answered if BAE is to feel confident in committing the investment and capital that the project requires without raising serious concerns about future decisions and doubts about its viability.
Although manufacturing production and development skills rest hugely on the success of the two orders, it is most critical that the armed forces, as I am sure the Secretary of State will acknowledge, get the equipment that they need to fulfil their operational requirements. That, we believe, is the most important point.

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his initial observations and, indeed, for his general support for the decisions that the Government have taken. I shall endeavour to deal with as many of the more detailed points that he raised as possible, but in the event of my failing to do so, I shall certainly write to him with more specific detail.
In response to the many observations that the hon. Gentleman made about both projects, let me say that it is clearly necessary to be conditional in our approach to such multinational operations because they depend on decisions by our partners. The alternative, for any Government, is simply to go into the market and purchase equipment off the shelf. We could do that, but we are choosing to try to buy the best, most technologically sophisticated equipment. That depends very much on working with partner nations. That is the way in which we are approaching these decisions.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned doubts about Sweden. There are no doubts about Sweden; we are simply trying to attract it to the project in order that the missile may be

available to its aircraft. The memorandum of understanding still has to be agreed with our partner nations; that is necessarily so, as I have said, in any multinational project.
I can certainly publish details of the breakpoints and determination of when those assessments will be made once the memorandum of understanding is established. The breakpoints will be a certain period after that date. We shall retain the elements of DERA that give Government advice about the nature of contracts. That was part of the understanding that we set out.
On the in-service date, we anticipate the missile being available towards the end of the decade. On the US attitude, the package will provide significant job opportunities in the United States as well as in Europe. It is in the nature of modern defence industries that they operate around the globe—certainly across the Atlantic. I do not anticipate any difficulty in announcing orders that will create jobs to supply AMRAAM as well as the C17 heavy lift aircraft.
We are confident about the A400M. We are leading the way: we shall be the first country to have officially announced our order for A400M, and we believe that will provide a strong signal for our partners to do the same. Twenty-five is a realistic estimate of the number of aircraft that we require: 26 Hercules aircraft are to replaced by 25 A400Ms, but the A400M will have a capacity that is one and a half times greater than that of the Hercules; therefore, we are investing in significantly enhanced capability for the RAF. The RAF will not be required to maintain or train crew for three air frames. The idea behind leasing the Cl7s is that, once the A400M comes into service, it will replace the C17; then, we shall be dependent on a mixed fleet of two aircraft.

Mr. Barry Jones: My right hon. Friend's excellent statement presages many new manufacturing jobs for Britain, as well as an enhanced defence capability. Will he tell the House when the production of the A400M will begin and the locations at which it will be built? He will not be surprised if I volunteer the services of 4,200 Airbus workers in my constituency to make the wings, because we have a centre of excellence and world-class capability. Will he give further details of the reasons behind the size of the order? We had hoped that 35 would be ordered, and we should like to know why it is to be 25. None the less, the statement is a good one and my right hon. Friend should be thanked.

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. As he rose, I wondered what question he might ask. He has asked me about the projects on many previous occasions and I am delighted to be able to give him today, at long last, a straight and detailed answer. I am also grateful to him for volunteering his constituency: I am confident that it will be one of the places in which a significant number of additional British jobs are created as a result of the decisions announced today.
I made clear our determination to place a firm order for 25 aircraft, but I am confident that the aircraft will be a success around the world. Airbus Military is confident, not only that it will be able to supply aircraft to our partner nations, but that there is significant potential for exports to other countries not yet involved in the project.


Therefore, 25 is an initial order, but we are confident that it will lead to further orders and that the aircraft will be a success.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: In order not to blight the Secretary of State's career, I shall not offer him over-enthusiastic congratulations on having beaten off the Treasury. I hope it will be sufficient for me to say that he has managed to square a rather difficult circle.
The announcements are welcome because they strengthen the European security and defence identity, of which common procurement is an important component, and they underpin the expeditionary strategy set out in the strategic defence review. May I express the hope that the Secretary of State will show similar ingenuity in placing the orders for the roll on/roll off ferries, which I hope will follow hard on the heels of today's announcements?
On the question of Meteor, the Secretary of State was diplomatic about exports being thwarted by the United States Congress. However, it must be a matter of some if not satisfaction, at least relief that there can be no question of exports of the Eurofighter being inhibited because Congress might decide that permission should not be given for an American missile for the aircraft.
On the question of the heavy-lift aircraft, it is right to provide the Royal Air Force with the heavy-lift capability which is clearly necessary and which would have been of great advantage, for example, in Mozambique and perhaps in current operations in Sierra Leone. Is it not true that, by demonstrating confidence in BAE Systems from a military standpoint, the announcement will ensure that the company remains at the forefront of civilian aircraft technology as well?

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I congratulate him on his determined efforts in pursuing these matters over many months; he has been assiduous in ensuring that they have remained at the forefront of the House's attention. I am grateful to him for his support on previous occasions and today.
These are the collective decisions of Government, and all parts of Government are equally enthusiastic about the position reached and announced today, as I am confident the United States will be. As I mentioned earlier, it provides significant opportunities for US industry, as well as European industry.
I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman also on his sophistication in emphasising the importance of co-operation and collaboration in these projects. Europe is not in a position to invest country by country in the latest technology, particularly for such expensive projects. Inevitably, we must undertake them in collaboration with our European and American partners. These projects represent a significant commitment to such a collaborative approach.

Mr. Bruce George: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can rightly be pleased with himself. He has seen off the greatest enemy of the Ministry of Defence over the past 60 years: Her Majesty's Treasury. That is more than the Opposition succeeded in doing very often when they were in office. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, judging from the glum Conservative faces, he has done the right thing?
Has my right hon. Friend informed his wife that she is not likely to attend any White House functions over the next six months? However, that is a price worth paying. When the Defence Committee considers procurement in the next few weeks, it will seek more information about why these decisions were made, but my right hon. Friend can be confident that he and his team have got the decision right—a European missile on a European aircraft, the best heavy-lift aircraft available, and four of them, which is more than I anticipated. We, like my right hon. Friend, will give careful consideration to the fact that we have moved a little towards the European dimension of security. It is right for us to say to Europe, "We are watching you, and you must deliver."

Mr. Hoon: Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has pursued the matter with determination on behalf of the Committee which he so effectively leads. I look forward to providing further detail, as required, in due course.
It would be wrong to characterise these determinations as between Europe and the United States. There will be a great deal of work on both sides of the Atlantic as a result of our efforts. Crucially—this will be the most important aspect, as far as the White House is concerned—we are demonstrating a real commitment to improving European capability. The availability of the most advanced missile for Eurofighter and the availability of heavy-lift aircraft mean that Europe's capabilities and its contribution to NATO will be significantly enhanced. That is the message that the White House will most want to hear.

Madam Speaker: Order. May I have brisk questions from hon. Members and brisk answers from the Minister? I have in mind the need to safeguard today's business—after all, two motions have been tabled by the Opposition, and time is getting on.

Mr. John Wilkinson: The Secretary of State has chosen the riskiest options technically, the costliest, and those with the greatest potential for slippage, as regards both the missile and the aircraft elements. Can he put the House straight? The A400M is not a heavy-lift aircraft. Will he also make it plain that the A400M could not have taken four Puma helicopters all the way to Mozambique? It does not have the volume or the payload. Unless he retains some C17s in the fleet, when the A400M comes into service the Royal Air Force will no longer have a genuine heavy-lift capacity of its own.

Mr. Hoon: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise when he gives the matter some thought, in operations of the kind undertaken in Mozambique, what matters is not simply the capacity of an aircraft. One must also have regard to the size of the airfield where particular aircraft may land, and the number of times that it may be necessary to fly an aircraft into and out of an airfield. Sometimes, as we found in practice, the very large aircraft to which the hon. Gentleman refers by implication cannot fly into the airfields, and if they do fly into a particular airfield, it is closed for a number of hours before the next aircraft can arrive. A balance must be struck between the size and physical capability of the aircraft in question, and the number of occasions on which it is necessary to fly in


Aircraft—particularly if there is an urgent need to reinforce troops in the field, for example. The decisions are taken with such practical considerations in mind.

Dr. Doug Naysmith: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and its clear commitment to the Meteor project and the A400M? The Meteor project will create job opportunities in my constituency. More important, it will keep the United Kingdom and Europe in the high technology end of the crucial business that we are discussing.
The A400M will create and safeguard thousands of jobs not only in Bristol and the surrounding area, but throughout the country and elsewhere in Europe. The project is needed to safeguard essential expertise in this country. It is good for Bristol, Britain and Europe. Will we be able to order more than the 25 that my right hon. Friend mentioned today if negotiations with other countries suggest that that is necessary or even helpful?

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I agree with his observations; I am confident that the aircraft will be successful and that, in time, we will be able to order further versions.

Mr. Edward Garnier: Bearing in mind the answer that the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), if the A400M is not big enough to carry heavy artillery and armoured vehicles and the larger helicopters, how does the Ministry of Defence propose to deliver those weapons and vehicles to a theatre of operation?

Mr. Hoon: The premise of the hon. and learned Gentleman's careful lawyer's argument is not right. The A400M is big enough, but the numbers that are carried on specific occasions and the capability of particular airfields to deal with the size of the aircraft are important.

Barbara Follett: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement of awarding the Meteor contract to Matra BAE Dynamics, which, as he knows, is mainly based in my constituency of Stevenage. Does my right hon. Friend know that, in the 1980s, Stevenage suffered job losses which were the equivalent of five pit closures through the downsizing of the aerospace industry? Does he realise the boost that he has given to the town's confidence through an announcement that is good for Britain, Europe and—most important to me—for Stevenage?

Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend has been assiduous in putting the case for Stevenage. She has done that with considerable force for a long time. I am delighted that she is pleased with the decision that she has worked so hard to achieve.

Mr. Julian Brazier: While I welcome the decisions on Meteor and C17, will the Secretary of State place in the Library a list of the major equipments in the British armed forces that can be carried on the C17 and not on the A400M?

Mr. Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman asks that question of me, I am sure that we will be able to supply him with details.

Mr. Bob Laxton: I thank my right hon. Friend for the decisions, which I welcome. Can he tell us

yet whether the Rolls-Royce engine is the preferred engine for the Airbus A400M? If not, are there any steps that we could take to facilitate a decision? Can he suggest how many jobs may be created or secured, especially in Rolls-Royce in Derby, which is just outside my constituency, if the Rolls-Royce engine is procured for the A400M project?

Mr. Hoon: Under the terms of the agreement, Airbus Military, as the prime contractor, will be responsible for selecting the engines. However, as I made clear in my statement, we will stress to Airbus Military the quality of the proposal that we anticipate from Rolls-Royce. We are confident that Rolls-Royce will make a proposal that will fulfil the contractor's needs of price, quality and competitive advantage, while supplying jobs for the United Kingdom, especially for Derby.

Mr. Roy Beggs: While I welcome the statement and the commitment to smart procurement, I am disappointed that Raytheon Systems did not succeed. However, I congratulate Matra and accept the assessment that the Meteor collaborative project will ensure that Eurofighter is equipped with the best possible weapon for air superiority.
The Secretary of State suggested in his statement that the choice of A400M and the UK order for 25 will create 3,400 long-term jobs and more than 10,000 jobs indirectly. Will Shorts in Northern Ireland benefit from the opportunities that he announced today?

Mr. Hoon: I hope so, because Short Brothers is certainly a major subcontractor for BAE Systems. How BAE Systems allocates the work is obviously a matter for it, but it is anticipated that work will go to Northern Ireland as a result of the decision.

Mr. David Borrow: My right hon. Friend's announcement will be welcomed by thousands of my constituents who are employed on the Eurofighter and Airbus projects. Although they are mostly concerned about their job prospects, does he agree that it is absolutely vital to our defence capability that the European option for military aircraft and missile systems remains and that the announcement represents a crucial step to ensure that that capability remains in future?

Mr. Hoon: I am sure that that is right. The announcement will safeguard not only jobs in the United Kingdom and across Europe but our technology edge, which is a vital safeguard as we move through the new century. It is vital that we can compete for high-quality jobs in terms of not only numbers, but quality of the work. The decisions that we have taken have been influenced by that and it has contributed to the way in which we reached our conclusion.

Mr. Peter Luff: I certainly join those who welcome today's announcement on Meteor, but I am sorry that the Secretary of State did not include in his list of workers who will welcome it the 360 workers at BAE's rocket motors division in Summerfield, many of whom work in the constituency of the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock). Those workers will produce and develop the boost motor for Meteor. May I


say that, given the technical excellence of the Meteor solution and the backdrop of 30,000 manufacturing jobs being lost in the west midlands in the past year alone, any other decision would have been unthinkable? The real sadness is that it has taken so long for the announcement to be made at the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. My apologies for not having mentioned his constituency. I am delighted at any opportunity to mention the important contribution that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary makes to his constituents. I apologise for overlooking that fact, but the benefit of those decisions will be felt in a long list of constituencies.

Ms Sandra Osborne: This is, indeed, good news for the workers at BAE Systems at Prestwick, although it is tinged with disappointment given that the Government propose to scale down HMS Gannet—also at Prestwick. However, can my right hon. Friend confirm that he will lobby hard to ensure that Britain receives its fair share of work in those collaborative projects?

Mr. Hoon: Certainly, Britain will be the contracting authority for the missile, and BAE Systems and the consortium will be responsible for leading the project. That is an important way in which Britain will express its leading edge in the organisation of work and the technology. I shall certainly look into the constituency matter that my hon. Friend raises, but there will be significant job opportunities in and around Prestwick as a result of those decisions.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: BAE Systems has its headquarters in Farnborough, in my constituency, so the Secretary of State will not be surprised to know that there will be few glum faces in Farnborough today. I particularly welcome the Meteor decision, on which I pressed him as recently as last week, when he assured me that he would give an answer shortly. I am sure that the fact that we shall ensure that the missile technology will be retained in the United Kingdom will enhance Typhoon's export potential.
The A400M project, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said is risky, will depend wholly on the other partner nations ordering in significant numbers. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how far those other nations have indicated their willingness to sign up to the project and how soon?

Mr. Hoon: The answers to those questions are obviously matters for those countries, but they have generally indicated their support for the A400M project. We are leading the way by announcing our determination to purchase 25 of those aircraft. We are confident that the specific announcement will cause other countries to follow, so it should be possible to reach an agreement by the end of this year whereby we take forward the project. Such collaborative ventures inevitably involve some risk, but we are confident that the quality of the aircraft and the contribution that it can make to creating and securing jobs in the United Kingdom and Europe make that risk worth while.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: The decisions announced today on Meteor will be warmly welcomed by my constituents who work at British Aerospace's Warton plant, who will see it as a vote of confidence in British Aerospace in Lancashire. Does my right hon. Friend believe that the link that Meteor has forged with Boeing will be of significant assistance in expanding opportunities for export orders for the Eurofighter?

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are delighted that Boeing is part of the consortium, because it demonstrates that, as I said earlier, this is not a simplistic "Europe against the United States" approach. What we have announced is of significant benefit on both sides of the Atlantic. Crucially, the fact that Boeing is part of one of the consortiums illustrates the point that I have made.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: I am sorry to rain on the Secretary of State's parade, but the truth is that the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Air Force are the losers from today's announcement as far as the strategic airlift is concerned. The truth is that the MOD has been directed by the Prime Minister and by other Departments, particularly the Department of Trade and Industry, to order the A400M.
The Secretary of State has got no extra money out of the Treasury. Will he make that clear to the House? The other armed services will have to find the money to pay for an expensive commitment that will also have to be supported and maintained by the RAF—a wholly unnecessary different type of aircraft in its tactical airlift inventory.

Mr. Hoon: I am slightly surprised at the hon. Gentleman's observations. In recent months, he has tended to complain that we are constantly concerned about money. On this occasion, we are not necessarily choosing the cheapest option; we are choosing the best option, as far as the RAF is concerned.
The RAF will not lose out. In the short term, we shall have an airlift capability that the last Government were not in a position to order when the hon. Gentleman was advising them, although heavy-lift requirement had been identified. The combination of orders that we propose will secure for the RAF a capability that it did not previously enjoy.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Obviously, this is welcome news, and the cheers can be heard from the north-west. Many jobs have been dependent on both contracts. The news about the BVRAAM—the beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile—is certainly welcome to the workers in Chorley and in Lostock near Bolton. They have been awaiting the decision, and it is right, as is the decision on the A400M. I will press my right hon. Friend on only one point: 25 is welcome, but will he consider increasing the number? That is important for jobs in Lancashire, and for jobs in the north-west generally.

Mr. Hoon: We are talking about a valuable revision of the distribution of jobs related to the defence industry across the country, and I am delighted that the decision will be welcomed throughout the country on the basis that it will create and secure jobs in manufacturing industry.
I think that I have dealt with the point about numbers. These are firm orders, with which we shall proceed in negotiation with our partners.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that component manufacturers in my constituency will also welcome the opportunity of further orders from the companies, but will the Secretary of State tell us what was the quid pro quo from the Treasury? We know that whenever the Treasury gives something, it takes something back. We know that we have replaced the Typhoon's gun with a lump of lead to save money; we know that soldiers are having to go around saying "bang" instead of using real bullets, and that we are having to cancel exercises because there is no fuel for vehicles. What else is having to be cut from the defence budget to pay for what has been announced?

Mr. Hoon: Absolutely nothing. Our proceedings are being observed by a distinguished former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who I am sure will give the hon. Gentleman lessons on the way in which the Treasury operates, should he require them.

Point of Order

Mr. Simon Burns: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, as a matter of courtesy the Government make statements available in advance to the Opposition spokesman, the Liberal Democrat spokesman and, perhaps, spokesmen from other minority parties. As the Secretary of State is in the Chamber, Madam Speaker, would it be appropriate for you to ask him whether he, any other member of the Government, or anyone acting on behalf of the Government supplied advance copies of his important and complex statement to any of his Back Benchers who are in the Chamber, or were at the beginning of the statement?

Madam Speaker: It is not for me to ask the Secretary of State or any other hon. Member a question across the Floor of the House because the point of order is for me. I am not aware that that is the case. In fact, I have reason to believe that the Secretary of State did not give the statement to any of his Back Benchers, but I will not go into my knowledge on that score. The hon. Gentleman will have to take that from me, but, of course, it is up to any Secretary of State if he wishes to give a statement to any Member. That is for him to decide; it is not for the Speaker.

BILL PRESENTED

POLICE (NORTHERN IRELAND)

Mr. Secretary Mandelson, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Secretary Straw and Mr. Secretary Cook, presented a Bill to make provision about policing in Northern Ireland; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 125].

Juvenile Justice

Miss Anne McIntosh: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that a young person indicted for a serious criminal offence shall be brought to trial within a period of 110 days; and for connected purposes.
As a Scottish advocate, now non-practising, I recognise that the 110-day rule that applies under Scots law has many advantages over the system in England. It gives great clarity to prosecution and defence alike as to how the rule applies. It is easy and simple to administer, unlike the Government's preferred option in England of different time limits being set for different categories of offender.
There are compelling reasons to introduce an equivalent rule to the 110-day rule into English law for both social and legal purposes. Three categories of people would benefit. The first is the young offender. Is it not extraordinary that, although figures exist for the length of delay facing persistent young offenders, there are no figures readily available for first-time young offenders? However, the trauma of facing the judicial system for the first time matches, if not outweighs, that felt on repeat appearances. I hope that the Government and the Home Secretary can rectify that situation as a matter of urgency.
As a general rule, clearly, all young offenders would suffer less were there to be a policy of keeping any delay awaiting trial to an absolute minimum. The anxiety that the accused and their families must naturally feel would therefore be curtailed. Likewise, for the victims of a crime that is suspected of having been committed by a young offender, protracted delay can result in real concerns about justice being done and seen to be done.
As regards witnesses, the sooner a case is brought to trial, the less chance there may be of any eventual memory loss. It is well known in legal practice that witnesses are very human and that the passage of time dulls the memory, even down to the colour of clothing worn by the accused or an accomplice. Those are compelling grounds to improve the administration of justice with regard to all young offenders. A particularly worrying trend is the rise in crime among the 10 to 17-year-old age group both in London and throughout the country.
The Narey report contained proposals to combat youth crime, which were piloted in six areas in England between October 1998 and March 1999. Those measures included location of Crown Prosecution Service staff in police stations; use of CPS designated case workers to review files and to present certain cases; the introduction of early first hearings for straightforward cases; the introduction of early administrative hearings for all other cases; changes to the powers of single justices and justices' clerks to assist case management.
In Ernst and Young's evaluation of those pilot schemes, a definition of a persistent young offender is given as:
A young person aged 10–17 years who has been sentenced by any criminal court in the UK on three or more occasions for one or more recordable offences and within three years of the last sentencing occasion is subsequently arrested or has an information laid against him for a further recordable offence.
The level of support for the Bill shows that more must be done to reduce delays in trials for all young offenders—first-time young offenders as well as persistent young offenders.
In January 2000, the governor of Her Majesty's remand centre in Northallerton wrote to me, saying:
Like many others working in the Criminal Justice System I do get concerned about the apparent lack of movement between arrest, first court appearance and final sentence. This is particularly true for young alleged offenders who can spend months on remand in prison with a final "not guilty" verdict at the end of it all. It sometimes appears less than fair…
I have every sympathy for those who are trying their best to reduce remand time, it must be a thankless task as so many groups might have hidden agendas which inhibit the much needed progress on this issue. The crux of the matter may well revolve around ownership and the ease of administration. If the Police, CPS, Magistrates, Judges and the legal profession can understand the benefits associated with this initiative then I have no doubt it will work. If one group wants to plough a lone furrow the whole concept of speedier justice for the young offender will fail. We do need a system which is easy to monitor and left to one group to manage. The more complicated it becomes, and the more agencies involved, the less effective it will be and therefore unfairness could easily creep in. This must be avoided at all costs as faith in the Criminal Justice System, from whichever end of the spectrum, is a vital element of any civilised society.
The chief executive of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, Helen Edwards, wrote to me to say:
we fully support your proposal, which would usefully reinforce the efforts that the Government and the Youth Justice Board are making to reduce the length of the pre-trial process.
Support has also been expressed by members of diocesan boards for social responsibility. Jo Saunders, a social responsibility officer, wrote to me to say:
I am pleased to see that your Bill has got this far and certainly support your recommendations and hope that it will receive a commendation from the House.
Finally, Mr. King, a visitor at Hull prison, has expressed particular concern for Dutch and other nationals who are accused of offences. They often face lengthy delays when awaiting trial and have associated problems with matters such as language and visiting limitations. Those issues also need to be addressed.
As long ago as the previous general election, the Government promised to take action to reduce delays for young offenders. So far, however, they have failed to deliver. Figures from the Lord Chancellor's Department—in March 2000, in "Youth Justice Board News"—show that Crown court cases take an average of 210 days from arrest to sentence. Therefore, as so much remains to be done, I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Miss Anne McIntosh, Mr. James Gray, Mr. Martin Bell, Mr. Paul Keetch, Mr. Michael Fabricant, Mr. John Bercow, Mr. Stephen O'Brien, Mr. Graham Brady, Mr. Desmond Swayne and Mr. Christopher Fraser.

JUVENILE JUSTICE

Miss Anne McIntosh accordingly presented a Bill to provide that a young person indicted for a serious criminal offence shall be brought to trial within a period of 110 days; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 July, and to be printed [Bill 126].

Opposition Day

[10TH ALLOTTED DAY]

UK Manufacturing and Enterprise

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. She has also decided that there should be a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Mrs. Angela Browning: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the Government for failing to encourage an enterprise economy, for reducing the UK's competitiveness and burdening all sectors of business with extra regulatory costs and taxation and for adding to the pressure on manufacturing, resulting in many sectors relocating outside the UK; demands that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry outlines the Government's strategy for manufacturing as a matter of urgency, so that industry can plan for the future; and calls upon the Government to commit itself to reduce the overall cost of tax and regulation to business without delay, allowing UK firms to compete in the global market place and to retain a UK manufacturing base.
When new Labour came to office in May 1997, the Government inherited an economy in which the Conservatives had reformed our trade unions. We had created an enterprise economy in which non-wage labour costs were some of the lowest in Europe and in which the UK attracted one third of all inward investment into the European Union, creating 850,000 jobs. In 1995, the president of Philips said:
For manufacturing, Britain is the most competitive country in Europe today.
In October of the same year, the chairman of BMW said:
Great Britain is currently the most attractive economy in Europe for producing cars.
Since 1997, under new Labour, Britain has dropped from fourth to eighth in the world competitiveness league. Today's debate is an opportunity to examine what has changed and gives the Secretary of State a chance to spell out his Government's policy on competition, manufacturing and business so that companies can plan for the future—something that they are currently having great difficulty with.
Ever since 1997, when the "under new management" sign appeared above the door of the Department of Trade and Industry, one thing has become apparent: although they have learned the language of business, there is precious little business experience in the Cabinet. In the three offices of state that should be making Britain more competitive there is one non-practising barrister, one former politics lecturer turned journalist and one polytechnic law lecturer—the three wise monkeys who even now cannot see or hear what is happening to British industry. They lecture and hector people who every day have to plan, take decisions, invest money and create jobs.
Only today, we read in the Financial Times that in his speech to the CBI tonight, the Prime Minister will signal to business leaders that the Government have broader priorities than appeasing their growing ranks of critics in


the business community. The Secretary of State for Defence was clearly telling the truth when he told The Guardian last month that
metal bashing is no longer a vital national asset
That was a clear message for the Labour heartlands.
The Government's £30 billion of extra taxes and £10 billion of extra regulatory costs have started to impact on British businesses, but apparently the Government have broader priorities. In other words, they have departed from the field of battle and no longer see themselves as champions of British competitiveness. The Secretary of State has failed to be the sponsoring Minister at the heart of Government on behalf of business. The taxes and burdens imposed by the Government cover areas such as the climate change tax, IR35, employment relations, industrial works councils, increased fuel charges, workplace parking, congestion charges, end-of-life vehicles, employment agencies, sub-post offices, residential care homes—the list goes on. No sector has been able to rely on the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to put its case at the heart of Government. His job, as he sees it from the vantage point of a polytechnic lecturer, is to agree to all the new burdens. It is bad enough that he is constantly rolled over by the Treasury, but to acquiesce to policies that emanate from that seething mass of chaos that is the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions gives the impression that he has been dumped by his colleagues. If he is not careful, he could end up as the Labour candidate for mayor of Tyneside.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: How is it, then, that unemployment in the United Kingdom is the lowest in western Europe as a percentage of population?

Mrs. Browning: Because of the legacy that the Government inherited. One does not need to be able to work out seven times eight to work out those statistics.

Mr. Peter Luff: I am sure that my hon. Friend would wish to remind the hon. Gentleman that 5 per cent. of all manufacturing jobs were lost in the west midlands last year alone.

Mrs. Browning: Indeed. I shall come shortly to the pressures that manufacturing businesses are under and why they are struggling to maintain their competitiveness in world markets.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: rose—

Mrs. Browning: I am delighted to give way to the Prime Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary.

Mr. Grocott: The hon. Lady implies that Opposition Members possess tremendous business acumen, so could she remind the House of the practical business proposals that she put forward to solve the Rover crisis?

Mrs. Browning: I am happy to answer that question from another polytechnic lecturer. I have said before in the House that, before the Rover crisis broke, a Conservative Member of the European Parliament and

former director of Rover, Mr. Malcolm Harbour, wrote—with my consent as shadow Secretary of State—to the Secretary of State to offer the support of the Conservative party in negotiations with the Commissioner in the seemingly endless battle to secure money from Europe. However, the commitment of the Conservatives to try to help the Secretary of State—he shakes his head, but it is true and he has seen the letter—was made more difficult because he did not think that he had a problem with Rover until the news broke. Our commitment to trying to help Rover was clearly on the record of this House.
Business will find a different approach from the Conservative Government after the next election.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mrs. Browning: I shall give way in a moment, but I first wish to explain to business why it can live in some hope that a Conservative Government will change the mess and chaos. We will reduce the costs to business over the lifetime of a Parliament, because the costs of the regulatory impositions put on business by this Government must be cut. We will guarantee that we will report progress to Parliament, so that business will feel that burden lifting. All that business feels at the moment is regulation after regulation and tax after tax—all imposed at the cutting edge of what makes a business competitive. We will guarantee a low-tax, low-regulated economy, and we will ensure that UK companies are not put at a competitive disadvantage to other EU countries.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: While many people at Rover will appreciate what the hon. Lady tried to do, she did not answer the original question. Leaving aside the European grant, what solution did you put forward to solve the Rover crisis?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have no solutions to such matters.

Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman asks what solution we would have put forward. The Secretary of State held a press conference to take the credit for a proposal that he suggested ensured the long-term future of Rover, but had Conservative Ministers brokered that deal, we would not have assumed that we had concluded the negotiations. That will be the difference in the calibre of people who will hold office in a Conservative Government, compared with the people in this Administration who have never run any commercial operation, have never risked anything, and have seemingly never even engaged in a negotiation. As any business man knows—and the hon. Gentleman has some experience in that area—a deal is not deal until it is delivered. Indeed, I would say that a deal is not a deal until it is paid for.
The Secretary of State took the credit and then took his eye off the ball and did not follow through. In business, as in Government, following through is critical. I do not suggest that a Conservative Government would have or could have prevented any company—

Mr. Grocott: They were not saying that at the time.

Mrs. Browning: Yes we were. We live in the real world. The people who read and write about things may


not know this, but those of us who have had 20 years experience in business—as I have, including 10 years with a British manufacturer—know that nobody should take credit for negotiating a deal until they know that they can follow through and deliver on it. That will be the difference that business can expect from a Conservative Government, compared with the bunch of people in this Government who talk about things they have never actually done.

Mr. Richard Burden: If that is the calibre that we could expect of a Conservative Government, would it be different from that when the Conservatives were in government? They sold off Rover to British Aerospace in a deal that was found subsequently to be illegal under European law. They laid the foundation for the company to be sold on to BMW without any guarantees for the future, thereby putting the knife in the very hands of those who stabbed Rover in the back.

Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman is reinventing history. As someone who has tried to take a constructive role in the history of Rover for obvious reasons, and who I respect at least for his background in engineering, I would have hoped for rather a better question from the hon. Gentleman. If Labour Members have some sensible questions, I shall be happy to take them. However, I hope that the calibre of their questions will improve.

Mr. John Bercow: Is it not entirely typical of the Government's arrogant and incompetent approach that having agreed in principle to the part-time workers directive as long ago as April 1998, Ministers took 21 months before issuing their proposals to business for the incorporation of the directive? They then gold-plated its contents, and finally had the brass neck to demand a response from hard-pressed businesses throughout the country in less than six weeks.

Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. On Thursday morning, we shall deal in Committee with part-time work regulations. I look forward to that, because my hon. Friend has rightly observed that despite all the rhetoric, we are faced with yet another burden on business. It has been gold plated but the application and administration of it will be as cack-handed as everything else that the Government have introduced. It is bad enough that they keep adding to the regulations that bear on business, but they do so in such a way that businesses are punished even more severely. That is the inept way in which the Department of Trade and Industry goes about things.
We are looking for a commitment from the Secretary of State that he will learn from the way in which he introduced the working-time directive, for example. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) may not know, but I followed the right hon. Gentleman as a speaker on this very subject when he told a large audience of personnel directors that the Government had learned lessons. Clearly they have learned nothing. Alternatively, perhaps like the Prime Minister this

morning, they now find that business constitutes such an irritating lobby group that they really do not care to listen to its concerns.

Mr. Denis MacShane: The protest from business that I hear most about from south Yorkshire concerns the strong pound—the over-valuation of sterling. If a Conservative Government were to take office, what does the hon. Lady think that the value of the pound should be against the European currency, and what would she do to reduce the value of the pound?

Mrs. Browning: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Prime Minister's statement this morning. He made it clear that those who are suffering from the difference in the value of the pound from that of the euro should recognise that the problem lies with the weak euro. When there is a difference in value that imposes a great deal of pressure and pain on business, especially manufacturing companies, those firms at the edge that are cutting margins should be able to rely on the Government to set an economic backdrop of low taxation and low regulatory costs, and not to add to their problems. That is the difference between enabling such companies to hang on, or not.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman is an advocate of the failed euro. I hope that rather than asking me questions about what a Conservative Government would do to rescue a currency to which he has so clearly signed up, he will think again and ask himself why he thinks that the euro is so weak. When it was introduced with much acclaim, it was meant to be a world reserve currency.
I sympathise with Labour Back Benchers, but it is ironic that they sign up to policies that fail and then look to Conservatives to solve the problems. It is flattering, but some problem solving would not go amiss on the part of Department of Trade and Industry Ministers. Many of their policies have caused the problems that are affecting business. Mercifully, business will have only about another year, we hope, to last out under the present Administration.
Unlike new Labour, we do not regard manufacturing as old industry and IT as the new industry. I understand that, in the glittery, bauble-like world in which Labour Members exist, everything new and modern is good and everything older or traditional is bad. We believe, for example, that e-commerce has an integral part to play in all industries, and especially in manufacturing, for both sales and sourcing.
The Government talk manufacturing down as an old industry that can now be discarded. They fail to understand the importance of the manufacturing base in this country, the true role of the new technologies being introduced, and the important part that they will play in the future or manufacturing.

Mr. Andrew Miller: If the previous Conservative Government had listened to the wise words of the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), they might have something to say about IT, but I have a simple question for the hon. Lady. If what she says is true, will she explain why Vauxhall, which has facilities in my constituency and in Luton, has faith in


investing in Britain? That faith is shared by the Quin Glass company in my constituency, which has just announced the creation of 500 manufacturing jobs.

Mrs. Browning: Only this month, Vauxhall publicly voiced its concern about UK competitiveness, specifically because of the burden of regulation imposed by the Government. The hon. Gentleman has Vauxhall factories in his constituency, and I am sorry that he appears to be unaware of that—perhaps he should set up a meeting with the company on Friday morning.

Mr. Miller: Answer the question.

Mrs. Browning: We need no lectures from Labour Members about e-commerce or anything dot.com, as there are enough dotty coms on the Government Front Bench as it is. The Labour Government put the Electronic Communications Bill in a Queen's Speech but then forgot to introduce it for nearly a year. Three weeks before the end of term last summer, the Secretary of State asked the Opposition to nod it through, and we refused. We said that it should be put out to consultation, as it imposed too much regulation and was not what the IT companies wanted.
The Secretary of State followed our advice, and I am glad that he did. We gave the Bill fair passage in all good faith when it returned after the summer recess. We are happy to help out the Secretary of State if he does not know what to do about e-commerce, but we will take no lectures about IT from any Labour Member.

Mr. Miller: The hon. Lady did not answer the question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but I have given the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) enough licence in terms of sedentary comments. I do not want any more.

Mrs. Browning: I want to make a little progress, and then I will try to take more interventions in a moment. I note that we are hearing today from the massed ranks of Labour Members who have no connection with business and industry but who form the collective of lecturers and media people.
The Government also appear to be unaware that global location has become less important. Today, the multinationals can switch manufacturing abroad and still guarantee quality and continuity of supply. Gone are the days when countries in the far east and south America relied on outdated machine tools from western countries. They are well equipped and competitive—and they are competing with us, now.
Directly as a result of new Labour policies, there is now a dangerous haemorrhaging of UK businesses to other countries. The Government have sent more businesses offshore than the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson). Road haulage is just one example of that, and it has been driven out by the highest road taxes in Europe. Before he took his business abroad, Eddie Stobbart stated:
We had no alternative—it does not make sense for UK hauliers or the UK economy as less revenue will be raised by the Treasury.

What sort of Alice in Wonderland world is it in which the Chancellor taxes a business to the extent that it has to set up abroad to remain competitive, thereby reducing the revenue that he will receive by having such companies based in the United Kingdom?
Petrochemical companies and banks are moving out their international information technology processing to Ireland, the USA and Singapore as a result of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill. As Computer Weekly reported:
They are not trying to fight any more. They are just going. They fear the UK simply isn't a safe place for confidential data.
The famous climate change tax will add to business costs next year. It will add 12 per cent. to Nissan's energy bill, 16 per cent. to that of British Aerospace and 10 per cent. to that of B&Q. Yet Department of Trade and Industry Ministers do not flinch. Manufacturing will bear the brunt of the tax, with no allowance for previous investment in energy efficiency.
The British Plastics Federation wrote to me saying:
The Levy, which will cost our industry over £60 million based on electrical energy consumption alone, is a serious threat to our competitiveness.
It is certainly not alone.
The Government face judicial review on the matter of IR35. IT specialists, who develop cutting-edge software, have been forced offshore, while the Chancellor gives tax breaks on hardware. Where is the common sense in that? We will have the hardware, but not the software to go in it. One such gentleman from Yeovil in Somerset wrote to me:
We will move to pastures greener very easily and quickly—suddenly money will leak out of the nation, with barely a whisper of warning.
Manufacturing has a range of sectors, from food processing to car manufacturing, in which multinationals in particular find it all too easy to relocate. Our national retailers, who once marketed the Made in Britain label, are moving textiles abroad.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my hon. Friend seen, as I have, announcements from electricity companies which, in response to the Utilities Bill, are sacking people as we sit here? Does my hon. Friend know that I tabled a question about how many people have been sacked, and was told that the Minister would let me know shortly? The Government are clearly not in touch with what is happening in this important industry.

Mrs. Browning: It would be charitable, given how much has been said about the climate change tax, to say that DTI Ministers are in a state of blissful ignorance. However, we know that they are not; they are only too aware of how damaging the tax will be to British industry and manufacturing. Yet despite being the sponsoring Department for business and industry, Ministers make no attempt to speak up for business in Government. They certainly do not speak up for business as far as the Treasury is concerned.
Between May 1997 and December 1999, 82,000 jobs were lost in the textiles industry. In 1999, the National Union of Knitwear, Footwear and Apparel Trades estimated that the equivalent of one textile factory closed every day. In its national strategy report, the clothing and


textiles strategy group highlighted regulation and its implementation as a major burden on business. Yet the Government do not want to listen.

Mr. Geraint Davies: If things are so gloomy, how did manufacturing output in the last quarter of 1999 reach its highest level ever? Manufacturing, of course, is growing less fast than the rest of the economy, where we have an extra 800,000 jobs. If things are so awful, why do all the statistics look so good?

Mrs. Browning: As the Engineering Employers Federation has pointed out, that increase has been at the expense of margins. That is all right over a short period, but, as a business man, the hon. Gentleman will know that unless manufacturing can see some light at the end of the tunnel, it will not be able to sustain cutting into its margins to keep up productivity for long. That is the worrying long-term future that manufacturing faces.
The present Government wring their hands. They offer sums of money to some areas and sectors and not to others. Perhaps the Secretary of State could explain the strategy. Is it based purely on the map in "The Times Guide to the House of Commons", or is there some higher body that he has applied to in order to identify who does and who does not receive Government handouts? I am sure that many of his hon. Friends on the Back Benches will want to know, as clearly they will need to indicate to their constituents, when the Minister says that this is a Government that will not intervene, whether there is a policy behind that or just political opportunism.
The Secretary of State could intervene much more positively. He could promise British business today that he will halt regulatory costs. The Chancellor could look again at the £30 billion of extra taxes on business, particularly those in the pipeline. If they fail to take action, and quickly, they can be sure that the sign that says "DTI" in Victoria street will be replaced very shortly in the eyes of business with one that says "RIP".
British industry deserves and was promised better than this. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now tell us how he will deliver.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'recognises that industry does not want a return of the boom and bust policies of the previous Government, with interest rates of 15 per cent, inflation above 10 per cent and soaring budget deficits; welcomes the Government's decisive action in taking politics out of interest rate decisions; notes that employment is currently 880,000 higher than it was when the Government came into office, and that long-term interest rates over the past year have been at their lowest for 35 years; welcomes the measures that the Government has taken to encourage enterprise, investment and innovation which particularly help manufacturing businesses; welcomes the Government's view that where firms are in difficulty the Government has a role in helping people through change as opposed to the previous Government's laissez-faire approach; and condemns the Opposition for its record in government, when manufacturing employment declined by 2¾ million.'.

The Government fully recognise the challenges that manufacturing faces in a global economy. One of the ways in which we can assist manufacturing to meet those challenges is to provide the economic stability that we now have in the United Kingdom, not because of some legacy from the Conservative Government, but because of the steps that we took on coming to office in the first few days after 1 May 1997, giving the Bank of England independence over interest rates to ensure that we did not play politics with interest rates, which certain right hon. Members opposite may well have done during their time as Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Byers: I have not started yet. Let me get through my introduction and then I shall be more than happy to give way, even to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
In the contribution of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), there was no recognition of the situation of manufacturing under the Conservatives. There are figures that demonstrate very clearly that while there may be difficulties in some sectors of manufacturing, as there clearly are, we still have a buoyant and vibrant manufacturing industry here in the United Kingdom. Hon. Members opposite should not talk manufacturing down, because there are real strengths.
Manufacturing productivity is rising by around 5 per cent. a year. Most economic forecasters say that it will continue to rise in the period ahead. Manufacturing export volumes are 9.5 per cent. higher than they were a year ago.
Let us look at those employed in manufacturing. Regrettably, jobs have been lost in manufacturing since May 1997; manufacturing employment has fallen by around 160,000 in the three years since the present Government came to office. But, in comparison, during the Conservative years from 1979 to 1997 an average of 140,000 manufacturing jobs were lost every single year. Every year for those 19 years 140,000 manufacturing jobs were lost, so we shall not take any lessons from the hon. Lady, who was a Minister in the Governments responsible for that record on manufacturing employment.
Between 1979 and 1997, manufacturing employment fell by more than 2.5 million people. That is the Conservative record on manufacturing, a record that we shall remind hon. Members opposite about, and remind the country about as well.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He will know, if he looks at any table of statistics, that manufacturing employment throughout the world was going down during that period. Will he reflect on what was happening to manufacturing jobs in the Conservatives' last few years in power, on the present Government's statement when they came in that they would do so much better for manufacturing, and then on exactly what has happened over the last three years?

Mr. Byers: Government is not like pick and mix at Woolworths. The hon. Gentleman must stand on the


record of Conservative Governments—that was their record. When I talk about people losing their jobs, he—with a majority of only 76—gets slightly worried.

Mr. Bruce: It is 77.

Mr. Byers: I apologise—another rather foolish person voted for the hon. Gentleman. However, I can understand his concern.

Mr. Edward Garnier: rose—

Mr. Byers: I give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who has a slightly larger majority.

Mr. Garnier: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State. Even assuming—although I do not—that his figures for the years of Conservative government are correct, what will the Labour Government do to put the matter right?

Mr. Byers: I shall outline our approach. I am pleased that the hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention has allowed me to address the point so early. What we are not going to do is take risks with the economy. That is why we are creating economic stability, with inflation under control. We have sound public finance and we are reducing the national debt. That is all in stark contrast to the situation that we inherited when we took office in May 1997. We are creating the economic climate in which business can plan ahead with confidence, knowing that we shall not return to the days of boom and bust that we experienced under successive Conservative Governments.

Mr. Garnier: Will the Secretary of State give me some examples of where that is working?

Mr. Byers: I draw the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the announcement made yesterday by Marconi. The company is creating 2,200 high-tech, well-paid jobs in the west midlands. A global company that could have gone anywhere in the world chose to come to the west midlands of the United Kingdom because of the skills of the people in that area and its strengths, and because of the economic environment that we have created. That is why inward investment reached record levels last year. We have created a climate in which people want to invest. We can take pride in that. It is not a legacy from the Conservatives. It has occurred because of the steps that we have taken; the environment that we have created means that businesses want to invest in the UK.

Mrs. Caroline Spelman: Surely the Secretary of State should have mentioned in the same breath that today Massey Ferguson announced that it was feared that 2,000 jobs would be lost at its Coventry factory, because of the difficulties experienced by the company. We should not jump to conclusions; the solution at Marconi may be neutralised by losses in other key manufacturers in the west midlands.

Mr. Byers: It is unfortunate that the hon. Lady did not refer to the whole statement made by the chairman of Massey Ferguson. He said that, if the Government made a commitment to join the single European currency, the

company would retain its commitment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] That is the truth. The company would retain its commitment to stay in the UK.
All those Opposition Members who wear nice, shiny brass pound signs in their lapels should realise that that is a signal to the chairman of Massey Ferguson. It creates the uncertainty that leads him to consider those options. That is the reality; rhetoric about Europe and the single currency is creating uncertainty in the mind of the chairman of Massey Ferguson. A little later in my contribution, I hope that I shall be able to reassure people in his position as to the Government's intentions.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, during the past 10 years—especially under the Tory Government—Massey Ferguson shed a large amount of labour, although there were increases in productivity? There has been uncertainty at Massey Ferguson for a long time, as most people are aware. As for the chairman's statement, we all realise that the value of the pound is extremely high and we hope that something can be done about it, but we have not yet heard from the Opposition what they would do about the high pound. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) should be careful when she refers to the history of Massey Ferguson.

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point from his personal experience. The chairman's statement was made in the context of the need for certainty about the single European currency.

Mrs. Browning: rose—

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: rose—

Mr. Byers: I have a difficult choice to make—between the pro and anti-single currency wings of the Conservative party. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me, I shall first give way to his Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton.

Mrs. Browning: The Secretary of State is a true gentleman. Given that he has clearly had to make a commitment to Massey Ferguson and to companies like it, will he share with the House the reassurances that he has given them about the Government's commitment to giving up the pound and to joining the euro? What time scale has he set and what does he consider to be the optimum rate of exchange when Britain goes in?

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend should take the intervention of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) straight away, so that he can combine the answers.

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes a good suggestion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may want to intervene after I have given a brief explanation.
The Government's position is absolutely clear: we want to join a successful single European currency. I assure the hon. Lady that we have the five economic tests and that we shall evaluate those five tests early in the next Parliament. That is the Government's policy and we intend to follow it.

Mr. Clarke: The chairman of Massey Ferguson would require a rather better answer than that.
The Secretary of State claimed to have created the conditions that he described, but will he return to the main point? He inherited a circumstance in which we were the fastest-growing major economy in the European Union and we were an extremely attractive base for investment in manufacturing and other industry. He faces the charge that his Government have introduced into that situation higher taxation on business and a much higher level of regulation while doing nothing about the excessive value of the pound. Is he aware how complacent he sounds in the light of all the problems faced by huge numbers of manufacturers across the country?

Mr. Byers: I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has a vested interest in talking up this Government's inheritance on the state of the economy. However, he will know that the national debt was increasing, that there were real inflationary pressures and that we did not have sound public finances. Those were the difficulties that we inherited when we took office and we have taken action to address them.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Byers: I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The intervention of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, was very interesting. He put through the Transport Act 1985 and that Act, by itself, was responsible for the total destruction of the whole of the British bus manufacturing industry, including the loss of the Leyland national plant in my constituency that produced 2,000 single-decker buses per annum. His deregulation of transport destroyed the industry.

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The facts are worth rehearsing for the benefit of the House. In the early 1990s, almost 1 million manufacturing jobs were lost. Some 70,000 of them were in the motor industry, with 13,000 jobs lost in one company alone—GEC in 1991–92—and 20,000 jobs were lost at Ferranti in the first four years of the 1990s. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton talked about the difficulties being experienced by the textile industry. I accept that there are difficulties, but they pale into insignificance when compared with the fact that, in 1992, more than 1,000 textile and clothing manufacturers went bankrupt—three for every single day of the Conservative Government that year. That is the record of the Conservatives.
The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) raised the issue of international comparisons and it was a point well made. When one considers the levels of manufacturing output or of manufacturing employment in the other major industrialised countries—whether the United States, Japan, Germany or France—all of us, including the United Kingdom, have witnessed a decline in manufacturing employment and in the contribution that it makes to the gross domestic product. We are not alone in the reductions that have taken place. When people argue about levels of employment in manufacturing, we

should remember that it is a decline that has taken place in most industrial countries over the 15 past years or so for reasons that most Members understand.

Mr. Bercow: The Secretary of State simply did not answer the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). Given that the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Business and the British Chambers of Commerce—to name just five representative business organisations—have all recently attacked the Government for dramatically increasing the regulatory burdens that threaten small business competitiveness, why does the Secretary of State continue to insist that he is right and that they are all wrong?

Mr. Byers: In the debate about regulation and the burden of red tape, a balance needs to be struck between setting minimum standards for genuine entitlements for people in the workplace and red tape and bureaucracy. Of course, Opposition Members confuse the two. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton quoted the cost of regulation as £10 billion, which she took from a survey conducted by the British Chambers of Commerce. However, she did not mention that £6.6 billion of that is the cost of providing an entitlement to four weeks' paid holiday a year. Conservative Members, including the hon. Lady, call that a bureaucratic burden.
More than 3 million people who benefited from that entitlement will note with interest what the hon. Lady said on behalf of the Opposition. For Conservative Members, £6.6 billion means an administrative burden and red tape, but for people in work it is four weeks' paid holiday a year. We call that decency in the workplace, but Conservative Members talk about a bureaucratic burden on business. That is the difference between our two parties: Conservative Members should give some thought to that.
I was interested to learn that the hon. Lady launched the commonsense revolution for small business last week. She spoke about exempting from the whole raft of employment legislation small businesses, which are defined as those with fewer than 10 employees. If I am not right, I stand to be corrected.

Mrs. Browning: That is not right, although it was reported in one newspaper. However, in our "Commonsense Revolution", in which we said that we shall reduce the cost of the burden on business, we said that we shall use the American system, which we have studied carefully, to exempt small businesses. The basis of the exemption will depend on the nature of the legislation. In some cases, it will be based on the number of employees, but in other cases it may be more appropriate to base it on the turnover of the business.
However, the Secretary of State and small business can be sure that we shall follow the American system to which the Prime Minister pays lip service, but does not emulate. We shall make the country competitive and ensure that the Department of Trade and Industry once again stands for enterprise in relation to such regulation.

Mr. Byers: Given the hon. Lady's hostility to the principle of the national minimum wage, are we to take it that small firms will be exempt from paying their employees the national minimum wage? [Interruption.] We shall hear that comment in a second, I dare say. Four million people work in firms with fewer than 10 employees, but she cannot give them a guarantee that they will continue to be entitled to receive the national minimum wage. That is the Conservative threat to those on low incomes who receive the national minimum wage; the Opposition cannot guarantee that it will be retained.
The working time directive and entitlement to four weeks paid holiday a year are also under threat from Opposition policies. That should come as no surprise, because Conservative Members are concerned about red tape and bureaucratic burdens on business, not common decent standards.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: rose—

Mr. MacShane: rose—

Mr. Byers: I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane).

Mr. MacShane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the heaviest burdens faced by businesses in the United States and Europe is having to pay employees' health insurance costs? Are not some of the most sinister threats to the UK's business competitiveness the plans to privatise the national health service and impose health costs on all employers? The Opposition argue for that continually.

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point in his usual highly effective way.
Regulation involving red tape and administrative burdens is important and we shall take steps to deal with that.

Mr. Ian Bruce: What about the weak euro?

Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman asks about the euro, and it is time to address the single currency.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: rose—

Mr. Byers: I am sorry, I must get on to the single currency, about which many hon. Members feel strongly. However, before doing so, I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. Jim Cunningham: Does my right hon. Friend agree with my interpretation of the silence on the minimum wage of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton: that a future Tory Government would return people in my constituency to working for £1 an hour? Is that what she is really saying by her silence?

Mr. Byers: The implication of the hon. Lady's position is exactly that. My hon. Friend makes a significant point

about the threat that will hang over people who receive the national minimum wage in the event of a Conservative Government.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Byers: I have a difficulty; I know that the hon. Member for Macclesfield wants to intervene, so I shall give way to him first.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Secretary of State is coming to the single currency and the euro. Will he comment on remarks made to me only a little earlier today by a very senior executive of Nortel, the highly profitable electronics company that employs more than 11,000 people in this country and wants to employ several hundred more? He said to me, "My company isn't that concerned about the strength of sterling. We are concerned about the over-regulation in Europe and the high social costs in Germany and France. May I make a plea to you to urge the Government not to go down the path of Germany and France? We want a light hand of taxation and of regulation. Given that, we will continue to expand in the UK." That is rather different to the case that the Secretary of State quoted of Massey Ferguson.

Mr. Byers: I was almost distracted by the hon. Gentleman's pound lapel badge glinting in the light. The gentleman from Nortel makes a strong point. There is no doubt that a Europe based on regulation, directives and negative attempts to control is not the Europe that will be right and fit for the 21st century. That is why the outcome of the Lisbon summit at the end of March was so significant. It set a new direction on Europe—a Europe that recognises the importance of competition and enterprise and that is prepared to lift barriers to ensure that we achieve such objectives.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I agree with my right hon. Friend that Lisbon is absolutely the key. May I take him back to his earlier remarks? What he said will come as a shock to millions of people in this country. Is he saying that he cannot get an assurance from the Conservative party that it will not exempt small businesses from the national minimum wage? If he is saying that, and we do not hear such assurances, major news is being made in the House of Commons. The issue affects millions of people, and they should know exactly what is being said and what is being planned. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to press the Conservatives. Let us have the truth now.

Mr. Byers: The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton has already disclosed the policy, which is exactly as my hon. Friend has described. There has been no attempt to disassociate the Conservative party from the points that he made. The position is absolutely clear. We know that the debate in the Conservative party about the minimum wage is still being fought by certain members of it, including the hon. Lady, who speaks on such matters for the party.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether it could be noted in Hansard that when those exchanges took place, the Opposition Front-Bench team—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must know by now that he must not pursue points of debate through bogus points of order.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Byers: I want to turn to the question of—

Mr. Bercow: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Byers: No, I want to make some progress on the question of the relationship between sterling and, in particular, the single European currency.

Mr. Bercow: The right hon. Gentleman promised that he would give way.

Mr. Byers: I did promise.

Mr. Bercow: The Secretary of State, for all his failings, is exceptionally courteous and I am very grateful to him. Given that the United States has been so much more successful over a period of 30 years than the European Union in the creation and retention of private sector jobs, why, in considering parental leave policy, was not the Secretary of State sensible enough to reject the parental leave directive of the EU and instead to copy the provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act 1993 from the United States?

Mr. Byers: Because I took the view, for better or worse, that a parent who works in a firm that employs 10 or 15 people should have the same rights as a parent who works for a firm that employs 500 or 1,000 people. Their parental responsibilities are the same and people should not be denied the opportunity to look after their children in an appropriate way simply because of the size of the firm for which they happen to work. The hon. Gentleman might disagree with that approach, but I think that it was the right one to take.
On sterling and manufacturing, I understand the difficulties that the current fall in the euro is causing some sections of British industry, especially manufacturing. The current euro-sterling exchange rate cannot be justified by any view of long-term economic fundamentals. Some argue that joining the single currency would end the difficulties that the euro's weakness is creating for some exporters. That was the point made earlier today by the chairman of Massey Ferguson.
The Government's policy is clear. It was stated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in October 1997 and by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in early 1999. The crucial factor underpinning any Government decision on joining the single currency is whether the economic benefits to the United Kingdom from joining are clear and unambiguous. Britain should be part of the single currency, provided that the economic conditions have been met and the people have given their consent in a

referendum—but the five economic tests laid down by the Chancellor have to be met. We shall judge whether the five tests have been met early in the next Parliament. If the economic tests are satisfied, we should join the single currency, if that is what the Government, Parliament and the people decide.
Unlike the Conservatives, we do not rule out joining the single currency for an indefinite period even if, during that time, it was in the national interest to join. Nevertheless, it is vital that we do not, by default, drift back to a policy of wait and see, as to do so would be to deny a genuine choice to the British people. Therefore, we need to re-affirm our commitment to prepare and decide. We shall not allow political dogma to triumph over the national interest. We shall put the interests of our country and of our businesses first, and provide the British people with the opportunity to exercise a genuine choice in an important area.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the convergence test includes the issue of the exchange rate—currently uncompetitive—and the need to have a more competitive rate for entering the single currency?

Mr. Byers: Clearly, that will be one of the issues that we shall have to take into account in connection with the five economic tests.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Byers: No, because I want to make progress lest I detain the House too long.
Business regards the UK as a good location, and global companies choose to locate here. A recent foreign direct investment confidence index identified the UK as the second most preferred destination after the United States for foreign direct investment. In 1998, we had record levels of foreign direct investment. Not only is inward investment increasing, so are exports. The latest World Trade Organisation figures show that, last year, the UK remained the fifth largest exporter of goods in the world. Last week, the Economist Intelligence Unit published its annual assessment of the best locations in the world to do business. The study, based on factors including policies towards enterprise and taxation, concludes that Britain's prospects for the next five years exceed those of the United States, Canada, Singapore, Germany and France. That is the environment and climate that the current Government have created.
The Conservatives' policies are becoming clearer. They complain about the value of the pound, but then the Shadow Chancellor says:
We have to get used to the idea that a strong currency is not a bad thing.
They rule out joining a single currency for an indefinite period—even if joining is in the interests of manufacturing. They say that taxes should be lowered by billions, but they do not identify which elements of health or education should be cut. They say that the burden of regulation should be reduced, but the main burden they cite is the cost of paying a minimum wage and giving four weeks' paid leave a year. Decent standards are under


threat from the Conservatives. Of course, when they were in government, they pursued short-term objectives that led to recession twice during their period of office.
In contrast, this Government are pursuing policies that will attract record levels of inward investment and produce rising exports and increasing productivity. Ours are policies for the long term—policies to challenge the status quo and ensure that we have economic stability.
There are no quick fixes. Stability will take root over time. We need long-term solutions to tackle the long-standing problems that have held us back for too long. That is the goal that we have set ourselves in government, and it is a goal that we will achieve.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I begin by making a declaration of interest—I am a director of a number of public companies, some of which have manufacturing interests in the United Kingdom.
As I said earlier to the Secretary of State, I found his speech unbelievably complacent. He tried to create a rather fictitious version, as I would have said in other circumstances, of the way in which he has moved from where he took over to where he is now. He insisted on using statistics gathered over an 18-year period, taking in two recessions—the last of which was many years ago—in order to try to demonstrate that the Government had taken over a difficult situation.
The fact is that the Secretary of State and his Government took over the fastest growing major economy in western Europe. The United Kingdom was an extremely attractive place for manufacturing and other investment. Stable economic conditions were in place and we were committed not to return to boom and bust. However, conditions have since deteriorated.
The background to the Secretary of State's speech today is that manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom is bleeding as it has not bled for the best part of 20 years. The principal cause of that is the high value of sterling against other currencies, particularly against the euro. In my opinion, the value of sterling is also too high against the dollar, as I shall go on to argue.
Of course, the problems in manufacturing industry, like the problems in all economic policy, are not caused by a single factor. I strongly agree with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) about the way in which the Government have produced an excessive burden of taxation on business generally in this country, and the fact that they are introducing an ever-heavier regulatory burden. Both of those are damaging a great deal of the competitiveness of British industry. That is one of the changes that has come about with the change of Government. I spoke on both matters—making the same points, but not as eloquently as my hon. Friend—in the debate on the Finance Bill.
However, the principal problem facing manufacturing industry in the UK, which is driving many good and competitive companies ever nearer to the wall, is the excessive strength of sterling on the foreign exchange markets. The problem is rarely dealt with as clearly as that by either Front Bench. There is a rather curious agreement—I shall not call it a conspiracy—between the two Front Benches that the strong pound should not be

referred to quite so clearly, when it is raised indelicately by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), by me, or even occasionally by a Liberal Democrat. Apparently, that is a problem on which too much stress should not be laid.
The Government's motives for not speaking too much about the strong pound are that they like to pretend that, as we have just heard, all is now perfect in the economic world thanks to the brilliance of our present Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues. I regret to say that I believe that there are those on the Opposition Benches who sometimes like to think that everything is going quite well for the British economy, thanks to the fact that we have not yet been able to join the single currency.
Whatever one's views on that, if we have a floating exchange rate—on any view, we are living with a floating exchange rate now and will continue to do so, certainly until after the next general election—we must address rather more carefully the fact that the exchange rate has floated to a level that is positively damaging to the country. It is damaging to the competitiveness of most companies trying to sell goods and services into the European market in particular, and if we are not careful it will damage the very prospect of keeping Britain an attractive place in which to make things. That is an extremely serious issue which deserves to be tackled, not simply dismissed in some of the knock-about that passes for debate, especially on European affairs, in this country.
There is a desire, on both sides, to dismiss the critics. Business men have repeatedly pointed out the effects of the strong pound on their business. The Government, led by the Prime Minister and supported by the Bank of England, insist on treating such criticisms as the whingeing of industrialists faced with strong currency conditions. It is implied that those of us who criticise the strong pound and the inactivity of the Government and the Bank somehow lack moral fibre and do not realise that robust and competitive industry has to take such problems on board.
There is another response from this side of the House to the critics—

Mr. Byers: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clarke: I have only 10 minutes to speak, and therefore do not believe that I should give way.
Critics of the strong pound are told by many Opposition Members that the problem is the weak euro, not the strong pound. The relationship between the two currencies is thus said to be an entirely one-sided problem. That is a simplistic approach to the problems of the foreign exchange market. When any two currencies move, the reasons for that are to be found on both sides.
The euro is weaker than it should be. It has progressed beyond the early stages, when it was a positive advantage to the European economy and enabled the German and Italian economies to avoid recession and begin to grow. The European central bank and European Governments should tackle the issue and try to accelerate the process of restructuring and reform, although those are currently progressing very quickly.
However, we cannot so simply dismiss the genuine problems that the strength of sterling causes. We cannot simply wring our hands or adopt a state of denial as a


nation in the face of our business critics. I shall not go into the issue of Rover and BMW. I am very critical of BMW and I do not believe that it can be used as a clear illustration of the consequences of sterling's strength, although that strength undoubtedly contributed to the extent of the losses that BMW suffered. In fact, the case of Ford in Dagenham is extremely illustrative of the problem.
Today, the Financial Times reports that Nick Scheele, the European chairman of Ford, is calling for the Government to make a more detailed and immediate commitment to joining the euro at the healthier exchange rate of DM2.50 to DM2.60 to the pound. Yesterday, before today's announcements of closures, Robert Radcliff, chairman of AGCO—which owns Massey Ferguson—warned that the Massey Ferguson plant in Coventry may have to close if the pound remains high and Britain fails to commit itself to the euro soon.
I shall not refer to the remarks of Mr. Toyoda or the well-known opinions of the president of Sony. These are all high-profile manufacturers, who reflect the views of many people from traditional engineering and manufacturing industry in the midlands and elsewhere. One has only to consider the potteries to realise what is happening to industry there. We already know the consequences for the textile industry. Those companies are not simply whingeing.
It is impossible for manufacturing industry to cope straightforwardly with a move from DM2.50, which was typical when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer, to DM3.40 to the pound, which is sometimes the case now. The movement of the pound from its trough in 1995 to its peak on 3 May is 37 per cent. It is no good telling people that they should respond with higher productivity to such a rapid move in their competitive position.
Instead of simply saying, "This is no problem of ours," the Government should do two things. First, they should have a tight fiscal policy to make it easier for the Bank not to have to continue to raise rates. Having committed themselves vaguely in the Budget to going beyond the tightness of the first two years, and given the Prime Minister's recklessness on David Frost's couch, which committed us to so much spending in advance, this year's comprehensive spending review will have to be very tight indeed.
The Bank must accept that the deflationary consequences of sterling at its current level are severe, despite the fact that our growth is below the European average. The euro has weakened because growth in Europe is weak compared with America's runaway economy. However, we do not have America's runaway economy, although we do have high interest rates and we do have a strong pound. It is time that the Bank, which does not talk about such matters—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech is time limited.

Mr. Richard Burden: In the light of recent developments in the motor industry, especially at Longbridge and Rover, it is important that I make a brief contribution. I am pleased that I have been

called several times to speak on those matters, but before I make some general comments on the manufacturing issues that arise from them, I must pay tribute to Labour Members with constituencies in the west midlands. They have participated greatly throughout those discussions, they have been tremendously active and they have given enormous support.
I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). I hope that that does not embarrass him too much, but he is a member of the Rover taskforce and has played a positive and constructive role in it. It is important to acknowledge that his approach has moved beyond the petty politics in which Opposition Front Benchers sometimes indulge on those issues, which have often been talked about as Longbridge matters. They are not; they have affected all Rover plants, whether at Solihull, Cowley in Oxford, Swindon or the research and development centre at Gaydon. It is important to place that on record because much has been said about what will happen at Longbridge with Phoenix, but there is a guarantee that staffing levels at Cowley—on which the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), has been active—will be maintained when production of the Rover 75 moves from Oxford to Longbridge.
I shall comment on three matters that arise from the Rover experience. The first is partnership. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said much about burdens on business and excessive regulation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the good point that when the Conservatives talk about that, they are referring to people's rights at work. He referred to parental leave in particular. I want to mention another set of rights that are especially pertinent to the Rover saga, because the hon. Lady criticised the European works council directive as an excessive burden on business. In fact, in this country, even under the improvements that the Government have introduced, it is simply easier not to consult workers about their future; sacking them is often easier than in other parts of Europe. The Conservative approach would weaken those protections still further.
The extent to which the trade unions in the Rover saga were able to exert any leverage over the past few weeks related to the improvements that the Government made to the TUPE regulations, which would be weakened by the Conservatives. We must be aware that there will be a greater chance that problems similar to those at Rover will arise if the Conservatives get their way on employee protection.
It is important to pay tribute to the trade unions in the Rover saga for playing an exceptional and positive partnership role. They have been actively involved in the Phoenix project, and I am very proud that it will lead to one of the biggest ever employee stakeholdings in a major company in this country. That is a positive step forward and Opposition Members should learn the lesson that consultation—the involvement of the work force—is not the foe of business; it is very often its friend.
The second issue is that it is sometimes suggested that there is a conflict between our traditional manufacturing industries and the industries we look to for the future. I think that the Rover saga has shown that there is not, and cannot be, an "either/or" in a manufacturing country such as the United Kingdom. That is why it was right to stand by Rover and its employees, and right for the


Government to help to facilitate the deal that was finally reached with Phoenix; but it was also right to establish a taskforce with the aim of diversifying and modernising the regional economy.
The taskforce produced clear and specific recommendations. Even in the area surrounding the Longbridge plant, it was suggested that it would be possible to create a high-technology corridor that would not be separate from the motor or automotive industry, but would build on its strengths and also build bridges to the high-tech industries of the future. Yesterday's announcement about Marconi is a further example of that forward-looking approach.
Thirdly, I want to say something about the exchange rate and the role of our banking system. Does anyone who speaks to manufacturing exporters, particularly those who wish to export to Europe, know about the problems caused by the relative strengths of the pound and the euro? Real damage is being inflicted. Although some firms—often they are the smaller firms—do all that we ask of them in terms of raising productivity and improving procedures, if productivity increases are then wiped out by fluctuations in the exchange rate those firms will still face problems, however forward looking and productive they may be.
There are no easy answers. Certainly, the answer does not lie in encouraging the idea that the way out is ruling out closer co-operation with the euro, thereby creating the impression that sterling can be the ultimate hedge currency of the future. That will make the situation worse, not better. We must, however, deal with the problem involving the banks.
Increasingly, multinational companies insist that their suppliers in the motor industry and elsewhere enter into contracts involving euros, and do their business in euros. That is understandable, and it accords with the way in which such companies work. Incidentally, it is also why much of what is said by the Opposition is so irrelevant to their needs. Is it right, however, for the risks associated with such transactions to fall, as they all too often do, on the manufacturers involved—for instance, components firms?
Perhaps there is a lesson for the banks. Perhaps they should consider operating in euros when negotiating with manufacturers. If we are looking to the strength of our manufacturing and components sectors, perhaps the risks can be shared. If they are not shared, there will be consequences not just for small firms, but for our manufacturing sector as a whole—and that means consequences for our economy as a whole, which will affect our financial sector as well as our manufacturing sector.
I hope that the banks will think about how they can play a more proactive role in helping firms through the problems that they are experiencing with the exchange rate. I think that if the approach is right, some of the more forward-looking financial institutions may respond. The Rover taskforce has already produced forward-looking ideas about how banks and financial institutions could involve themselves with the problems—hopefully, they will not be so great now that Phoenix is taking over—that are likely to occur in the components sector following massive shocks to its orders as a result of the winding down of Rover orders. I think that we can build on the

work produced by the taskforce partnership—facilitated and encouraged by the Government—and apply it more generally.
For years this country had a bank that was not independent, while Germany had a bank that was independent. Let us consider the way in which the two institutions operated and their relationships with regions and industry. The independent German Bundesbank was much more inter-dependent with the needs of industry than our non-independent Bank. We now have an independent Bank; giving it independence was exactly the right thing to do. We need to talk with the Bank about how its structure can link much more naturally and exactly with our industrial regions because they are inter-dependent in economic terms. Structurally, changes could be made to allow that to happen.
I do not want to get to a stage where there are problems—perhaps such as those at Rover, or other problems—and we need to go to the banks saying, "How can you help?" I want the institutions and culture to be in place, with the banks coming forward and saying, "How can we help? It is our problem. We know about it and we are involved." We need to think more creatively about how to reform our banking system to reflect that.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I came to the debate at only a few minutes' notice because the wife of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who speaks on trade and industry matters, has been taken ill. He had to go to hospital with her immediately before the start of the debate. If my speech is a little rough around the edges—if no less passionate for all that—I hope that the House will excuse me and understand my hon. Friend's situation. Later, I have to go to the Confederation of British Industry. To make that appointment and to do a couple of other things, I may need to leave before the end of the debate. I hope that the House will excuse me in the circumstances.
As Conservative Front Benchers have argued, a wide range of issues is undoubtedly hitting industry at the moment. Some of them relate to burdens that the Government have introduced.
Some of those burdens, as the Secretary of State argued, are legitimate. Only a handful of businesses sought to avoid them in the past, but they were wrong to do so. It is right to seek to ensure that people are paid at least a floor basic minimum wage and floor basic holiday entitlements. Although they are undoubtedly burdens, most businesses always took them on. If all businesses have to take them on, responsible employers will feel that all businesses will fight on a far fairer basis.
There are burdens that should not have been imposed. We argued that paying the working families tax credit through employers and payrolls was a burden that was not right for business. We said that the principle that the Government were trying to extend was right, but not the mechanism. We note that the Chancellor has—almost before the thing is up and running—already announced that that process will end. He has acknowledged the problem.
As the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) has said, the extraordinary thing about the debate is that those on the Front Benches skirt around—or avoid altogether in the case of the Conservative


Front-Bench team—the issue that is really hurting manufacturing. It is the case, as Ministers argue, that much of the economy in Britain is doing well; there is no doubt about that. It has been doing well for some time and it continues to do so, but the sectors that are being hit are those that rely on a competitive exchange rate: those involved in manufacturing and in basic resources.
Those sectors include large industries such as the English china clay industry in my constituency. It is in a highly competitive environment, selling a product that is matched by others throughout the world, although perhaps not quite at the same high quality. However, the raw material is sold by many. Price is absolute for such industries, yet they have been hit by the exchange rate change.
Small businesses in my constituency, such as those owned by Svedala, which manufactures pumping equipment, are also being hit. Jobs are being lost. The problem involves Sweden and South Africa, too, to take examples outside the euro. It is not simply a euro exchange rate problem. Parent companies are transferring jobs out because they simply cannot make it pay to manufacture in this country, although Svedala, the parent company, acknowledges that, in Charlestown, it has the highest-quality plant and comparable, if not better, rates of productivity.
Those are not the issues. The issue is the sterling exchange rate, yet next to nothing is said on that by Conservative Front Benchers because they have no solution to offer. They have ruled out the one thing that might make a difference in the long run, which is to take away most of the problems for most of our trade, which are to do with exchange rate fluctuation, by looking towards the euro.
Conservative Front Benchers have also ruled out even the types of tools used by previous Chancellors of the Exchequer to take on the exchange rate, because they have a bizarre fantasy of being able to increase expenditure while cutting taxes. Such a combination would of course only help to make the problem worse—by running up huge deficits and further stoking the economy. Eventually, such a policy would lead to a crunch, when it became apparent that the figures did not add up.
Government Front Benchers also have not addressed the entry issue, because they will not deal with the one measurable, hard condition for entry—a competitive exchange rate. They are afraid that they might get caught out on the euro debate by mentioning measurable criteria, which they think could eventually prevent the Chancellor from announcing that all is well and that we should join. Ministers will go to any length—at least on this side of a general election—to avoid that debate. However, the cost of avoiding it is being paid in the jobs that are now haemorrhaging from manufacturing industry.
Not only jobs are being lost; whole businesses, and parts of businesses, are going bust. They will not return, as we know only too well from the two previous occasions—in the early 1980s, and in the early 1990s—when high exchange rates knocked out some of our businesses. Only the situation in the very early 1980s was at all comparable to the present one, and the then Conservative Government's response to it was precisely

the same as the current Labour Administration's response now—to say, "We cannot buck the markets. The markets are king, and we cannot take them on."
Eventually, however, the early-1980s currency situation was reversed, as always happens in speculative markets. Sentiment changed and—hallelujah!—the pound decreased in value. The only problem was that businesses were permanently lost, as were investment opportunities and an opportunity to take an industrial lead in many sectors. Hon. Members have already mentioned some of the businesses that simply no longer operate in the United Kingdom.
Some people proudly wear on their lapel a little gold pound badge. The irony is that they are the ones who are arguing that the high pound demonstrates sterling's success and proves that we should never join the euro. Previously, precisely the same people argued that we had to leave the exchange rate mechanism, which locked the pound into a fixed relationship with permanently high currencies. Nevertheless, along came white Wednesday and—hallelujah!—the pound fell.
The truth is that those who adopt the little gold lapel badge want to lock us into being the tail on the dog, endlessly wagging one way and then the other. Nevertheless, economically, we are attached to the dog. We cannot escape the fact that, particularly for manufacturing industry, Europe is our market; that every exchange rate fluctuation will hit our industries; or that such fluctuations will lead to boom followed by bust followed by boom. Those people cannot acknowledge that avoiding such fluctuations and cycles is the fundamental reason for seeking to be within the shelter of the euro. If one has to be attached to the dog, it is far better to be in the brain than knocking about as part of the tail.
We also hear both Conservative and Government Front Benchers argue that sterling's strength is due to the euro, not to sterling. They say that sterling's exchange rate demonstrates its strength, and that, if anyone needs to sort out their house, it is those who are in the eurozone. That may or may not be true. However, a few years ago, when the Federal Reserve chairman was approached by European countries complaining about the dollar's weakness and the consequent damaging effects on the European economy, he said, "It may be our dollar, but it's your problem." There is a precise parallel there in sterling's high value.
The Engineering Employers Federation spells out the situation very well in its press release, which states:
Although output has increased, market share continues to be lost.
Export orders continued to fall for the thirteenth consecutive quarter. Export margins are at 25 year lows and imports continue to gain ground…The latest official figures show manufacturing investment was down 13 per cent. in 1999 quarter four on a year ago. The strength of sterling and the associated squeeze on margins and cash flow is forcing firms to adopt a short-term view…Productivity rising strongly in both manufacturing…and engineering…but this is being achieved entirely by cutting employment rather than through increased investment.
Those improvements do not match the problems caused by the current exchange rate fluctuation. The briefing note also points out that the rate of increase in engineering production in western Europe in 1999 was double that in 1998, but British companies have been unable to exploit those opportunities, with engineering in Britain advancing in 1999 by only a third of the average increase for western Europe. Of course, our economy is broader than just the


great manufacturing industries, but the pain is hard in those industries and the consequences will be permanent if we do not seek to change things now.
Manufacturing is not the only sector with problems. Farming, which we hear a lot about from the Conservative Front Bench, has been hit for six by exchange rate fluctuations, as has foreign tourism, which is a key industry in many Conservative seats, as in many Liberal Democrat seats. As the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe has already pointed out, this is not simply an issue of the eurozone. The value of sterling has appreciated against all but four of the UK's top 30 trading partners. Switzerland, which is not in the euro, but is linked to Europe, is not suffering the same problems. South Korea, Australia, Malaysia and South Africa are all countries not locked into the euro, but sterling is appreciating against them. We are being hit for six in our markets around the world.
The consequences are spelled out by people with the highest levels of experience on all sides.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are even at the wrong parity against the dollar? People tend to argue that there cannot be any great problem, because our parity against the dollar remains unchanged. The American economy is outperforming ours. Its growth outstrips the European average and we are growing below the European average. Remaining at parity with the dollar without matching the US performance puts us at a disadvantage that other European countries are not suffering.

Mr. Taylor: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right. The real lesson is that exchange rates are determined by speculators. Provided that they bet the right way today, they will make their money today. An economy needs a stable exchange rate, but the speculators who dominate the market in sterling need movement. They are getting that movement and making money, but they are putting hundreds of thousands—potentially millions—out of work.
The Financial Times on 5 May quoted Digby Jones of the CBI as saying that sterling was a major issue for tourism and farming, as well as manufacturing. He said:
I talk to a lot of businesses, and a lot are taking decisions either to look elsewhere, or not to do it at all…British companies are postponing investment projects or locating them in the euro-zone because of the strength of sterling.
On the other side, the comments of TUC general secretary John Monks have been echoed by many trade union leaders. On 4 May, he said:
the problems caused by the overvalued pound and the impact it is now having on manufacturing, exporters and the tourist trade will not go away. It cannot be right that neither the Government nor the Bank of England will take any responsibility for the exchange rate.
I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) about the rescue bid for Rover and the Phoenix consortium, but there is no doubt that John Towers would find it far easier to make a success of the company if we restored a competitive exchange rate. He was reported on 12 May as saying so in very strong terms.
In the past few days, a newspaper report said:
Nissan is threatening to switch production of its next Micra car away from the UK, raising the spectre of thousands more job losses in the battered motor industry.
The Japanese company, like other manufacturers, has found its profits savaged by the high value of the pound.
The most productive and efficient car plant in Europe cannot return a profit on low-margin smaller cars because it is impossible to outweigh the uncompetitive exchange rate through productivity. We live in a competitive environment, where every other country in the world is also doing its best to achieve maximum productivity.
Nick Reilly, the chairman and managing director of Vauxhall Motors and head of the CBI's economic affairs committee, has blamed the pound's strength for the troubles experienced by many companies. On 26 April, the Press Association reported him as saying:
We think there are sure signs of manufacturing slipping back into a recession.
In my part of the world, Toshiba has been questioned about rumours that it may halt production at its television factory in Plymouth. A spokesman said that there were no current plans to do so, but added that sterling's continued strength was
almost forcing us to close it.
These are terrible times for some of the most efficient businesses in the world. They have a lot of money to invest as long as they believe that there is chance of operating competitively in the reasonably near future. That is where there is a huge question mark over the policies of those on the Labour and Conservative Front Benches. The Conservatives want to postpone any decision on euro entry for five years. I do not know what "Save the Pound" means if they want to save it for five years. Either they want to save the pound or they want to think about it in five years. The Conservatives are guilty of exaggerating their position. They want to set aside any question of tackling the problems for five years, but the Government are also refusing to engage in the debate or take any material action.
The Conservative Front Bench position is somewhat confused. On 9 May, the shadow Chancellor was reported as saying:
We have to get used to the fact that a strong currency is not a bad thing. It is a reflection of a strong economy.
The former Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe, clearly does not agree with that and it is questionable whether his Front-Bench colleagues do either. The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) has said:
Matters have been made worse by the weak euro vis-a-vis the pound.
It does not sound as though he thinks that it is a success story. It sounds as though he would like something done about it. He went on to say:
The latter's strength against the euro and the far eastern currencies—
interestingly acknowledging that there is a wider issue—
will make it that much more difficult for our shipbuilding companies to obtain orders.—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 4 April 2000; Vol. 347, c. 169WH.]
Even the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry asked in January what representations the Secretary of State makes on behalf of key industries and


manufacturers in relation to the high pound. It is just as well that there is some confusion on the Conservative Front Bench, because the shadow Chancellor is wrong. Almost nobody in business or in the wider economy believes that we should regard the high pound as a mark of our success.
The Government are little better. They have acknowledged the problem since 1997. In July 1997, the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), said:
The Government share the anxieties about the exchange rate, but there are no short-term fixes.
In March this year, the Prime Minister said:
I too know the real problems the level of the pound causes.
In May, we were told in the Financial Times:
The Chancellor understood the "great difficulties" this was causing, particularly for manufacturing, but ruled out a "short-term fix".
I understand that, tonight, the Prime Minister will again acknowledge the problems of a high pound, but he has come up with a new argument. Now he says that doing anything about it would risk a return to instability in the economy. The irony of that is that sterling exchange rates is the one area in which there is instability in the economy. That instability is the cause of the problem.
I also notice that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that he understood the difficulties and confirmed that the exchange rate must be part of the tests for the conditions of entry. That is a breakthrough, because we have never been able to get such a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is good to know that the Government believe that, if we join the single currency, it should be at a competitive rate. The question is what they will do about it, and that is the issue that Liberal Democrats have sought to address.
Britain could have committed to joining the euro in 1997. When the first wave of members was announced, the conditions, including the exchange rate—then at DM2.78—were good for Britain. However, that opportunity has been missed. Now, we need an active strategy for reaching the point at which we could reasonably put the issue to the British electorate on terms that would allow British manufacturing industry to survive. Sterling is some 13 per cent. above the DM2.95 central rate when we were in the European monetary system, 21 per cent. above the rate at which the markets thought we were over-valued when we were ejected from the EMS, and some 52 per cent. above the rate of DM2.21 when the pound sank to its low in November 1995.
Things could be done to solve the problem. The most immediate action that the Government could take, without needing any change of policy and in line with the principles they have already announced, would be to say that they are actively looking to work towards the exchange rate conditions in which Britain could seek to join. They say that they want to allow the British people to make the decision and that they want to allow manufacturing to survive. The simple announcement of active progress and an indication of the exchange rate level they sought would in itself move sentiment in the market. We have evidence for that, because it happened in every single European country as they moved towards membership of the single currency. It worked for them, and it could work for us.
Opportunities also exist for active intervention in the market, which would not risk losses but make a profit for the Government. The euro will not continue to fall indefinitely and the pound will not continue to go up indefinitely—if it does, we can write off manufacturing and much of the Government's economic policy—so if the Government chose to invest in European securities, they could buy them more cheaply. They would also make a profit in the long run and, in the mean time, that investment would help liquidity in the market.
We set up a team of top economists to look at the issue. They did so, not as Liberal Democrats, but as people who share our concern about the problem. It should not be us who are doing that, because the Government should take a lead on the issue. In the mean time, as a result of the Government's sympathy with inaction, some 240,000 people have lost their jobs in manufacturing since the general election.

Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: The nature of manufacturing in the UK is changing and, as a responsible Government, we need to change and to develop our policies if we are to maximise the benefit of our manufacturing sector. This Government work to encourage successful business start-ups and to increase the capacity of business, including small and medium enterprises. I shall talk about that sector, including the sharing of good practice, skill shortages, funding, regulation, and working in partnership with people and organisations in our communities.
Enterprise and innovation are critical factors in the creation and growth of successful businesses. The pace of innovation in our knowledge-driven economy means that competitive advantage has to be refreshed constantly by businesses of all sizes across the range of business sectors. The DTI is working with intermediary organisations to bring about a step change in the level of enterprise and innovation in the UK economy, throughout the regions. It offers a range of targeted expenditure programmes to address cultural barriers to entrepreneurship and innovation, to provide support for start-ups and manufacturing SMEs, to promote the skills agenda and business best practice, and to facilitate a more effective exploitation of the knowledge base.
In December 1998, the Department published a much welcomed White Paper, "Our Competitive Future: Building the Knowledge Driven Economy", which set out a clear agenda for strengthening the capabilities of the UK economy to meet the challenges of the 21st century. As a consequence, the Chancellor announced in the Budget last year the Government's intention to establish a new body, the Small Business Service, which would be especially designed to meet the needs of the smaller business.
Last week, I met David Irwin, the new chief executive of the Small Business Service, and he confirmed that its objective was to act as a strong voice for small business at the heart of government and to improve the quality and coherence of delivery of Government support programmes for small businesses, ensuring that their needs are addressed. He also said that the issues raised by the business community included skill shortages, funding, sharing good practice and, to a lesser extent, regulation.
The Government made a commitment in their manifesto to support small businesses by several innovative means, including statutory interest on late


payment of debts. That commitment was met when the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 came into force on 1 November 1998. Several targets in the public service agreement relate to the objective of promoting enterprise and increased productivity. In particular, the DTI is working towards securing an increase in the number of high-growth business start-ups; increasing the productivity and profitability of SMEs assisted by business link partnerships; showing year-by-year improvements in the quality of services under the Business Link brand; increasing to 1 million the number of UK SMEs wired up to the digital marketplace by 2002; and increasing by 50 per cent. the 1997–98 number of companies spun out by universities by 2001–02.
It is crucial to provide locally delivered business support for SMEs. National, regional and sectoral strategies for competitiveness and economic development have to be backed by first-class business support services. Most of us are aware that Business Link is a national network of 85 local partnerships, which provides a simple route to information and advice for small businesses through a single point of access. Business link partnerships work closely with private sector sources of advice and services to improve the overall quality of help available to SMEs and to increase the market demand for such services. The network in England is now complete, with all businesses having access to the services provided.
In October 1997, the then Minister with responsibility for small firms, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), launched "Enhanced Business Links—A Vision for the 21st Century", which focused on quality, customer service and continuous improvement and excellence. The document outlined 18 action points, 14 of which have now been completed, including the launch and delivery of the enterprise zone, which is a significant and important regional initiative.
The Business Link vision was refreshed the year before last at the Business Link national conference, which identified six new challenges for implementation last year and this. Those challenges included building up, within three years, a high quality, customised advice service throughout England to support 10,000 high-growth start-ups a year; forging new partnerships, especially with the regional development agencies; using innovation and advanced techniques to satisfy rising customer expectations; preparing business links and SMEs for the opportunities of electronic commerce; getting to grips with brand managements; and recognising that continuous improvement must be a fact of everyday life. I would welcome a comment from my hon. Friend the Minister on how the Government have responded to those important challenges.
Business finance is essential to the development and promotion of small manufacturing enterprises. In 1998, a very good innovation was launched that recognised the tendency for firms still to rely on debt finance when equity might better meet their needs. However, equity in smaller amounts could often be hard to source. That was a complaint that those of us who visited small companies often encountered. As a consequence, a new enterprise fund was established to provide flexible financial support for SMEs with growth potential. The enterprise fund is intended to stimulate and support partnerships with the private sector to improve the availability of venture capital for early-stage, high-technology firms, and I am

pleased to note that the venture capital available in the UK is at record levels. The fund will also deliver a more cost-effective small firms loan guarantee; invigorate local and regional provision of equity in smaller amounts to growing businesses; and allow finance providers to bid for support for new products that expand their activities into untried areas. This fund is worth about £160 million over three years from 1999 to 2002.
There is an increasing premium from successful development and commercial exploitation of new technology. Thus, research and development play a vital role in enhancing company performance and promoting economic growth. I am aware that the Department of Trade and Industry is continuing to work closely with the Treasury and the Inland Revenue in examining new incentives to encourage United Kingdom SMEs to invest in R & D. I welcome especially the tax break that was announced, not only in this year's Budget but in last year's.
Good engineering is based on good research, and research investment fell to an all-time low during the previous Administration. The Labour Government have met commitments with funds. During 1998–99, the comprehensive spending review announced a boost to investment in the science and engineering base of £1.4 billion over three years. Real-term increases in funding have gone to the Royal Society, the Royal Academy of Engineering and the six research councils. The joint infrastructure fund was created in partnership with the Wellcome Trust to address infrastructure problems in universities. These problems had been increasing over 20 years.
The continuation of the joint research initiative was secured. Last but not least, funding was announced for a private finance initiative to provide super-computing services for academic research.
I have discussed a range of services and support for the development of manufacturing in the United Kingdom. There is a passionate commitment to enable British companies to respond to a rapidly changing environment. Issues of funding and business development support have been tackled, but I remain deeply concerned that we are continuing to fail to attract sufficient individuals into manufacturing to meet sector demands. There are requirements not only for professional engineers but for technicians and skilled and semi-skilled workers.
The previous Administration introduced the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill in 1994. It is now acknowledged that the measure was so restrictive that only 42 orders have been exercised since the Bill's enactment. That has saved British industry about £40 million. The measure clearly failed in its objective to cut red tape. It was with great pleasure that I noted in the Queen's Speech this year that a better deregulation Bill would be introduced. I welcome the measure, which will enable better regulation to be delivered to British business. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment.

Sir David Madel: I welcome this short debate, which is taking place at an appropriate time. Some sections of manufacturing industry are doing all right and others are not. As has been


said, many companies are struggling with the high value of the pound. As always in British industry, the picture is somewhat uneven. As the debate is short, I shall raise only one local and one national issue.
In the Luton and south-Bedfordshire area, we are extremely pleased that Vauxhall will invest £162 million into my constituency and next-door constituencies. Nothing could be a better boost than the 500 new jobs that will be created as a result of the Vauxhall-Renault van deal. As one of the local Members in the area, it goes without saying—I shall say it again, anyway—that I appeal to Vauxhall to give priority, in placing people in the new jobs, to unemployed truck workers, who for years kept General Motors going by working with great skill and devotion in the now, alas, shut truck plant in Dunstable.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) for nodding in agreement. I think that he will agree with me also that GM remained in this country, when there was a great deal of trouble at Ellesmere Port and at Luton, because Dunstable was trouble-free in many ways. Whatever else GM thought about the United Kingdom, it knew that trucks were being turned out at Dunstable and that the work undertaken there reflected the highest skills.
I do not want the Government to sit back and luxuriate against that background. Instead, I want them to do two things that will help us locally. First, I hope that the new investment will result in the creation of new supplier companies to the car industry locally. Some of these firms will be small, and I ask the Government to re-examine restrictions and red tape that hamper small businesses. I want new and small supplier companies to get started in the area that I represent as a result of Vauxhall's investment. Nothing hampers a small company from growing into a larger one more than some of the regulations and red tape that they now have to endure.
Secondly, Dunstable has firms that supply cars to Vauxhall and to the car industry in the midlands and the north-east. We shall keep the jobs that they provide only if those firms can move their goods quickly out of Dunstable into the midlands and north-east, but the local road network is becoming steadily worse. I want the Department of Trade and Industry to elbow its way into the debate on where new roads should be built for industrial purposes. There is an unanswerable case on behalf of Dunstable for a new A5 bypass. That would make it easier for supplier firms in my constituency to move their goods quickly in a highly competitive industrial market, which will become even more competitive as time passes.
My criticism of the Government's industrial policy is that sometimes the DTI leaves undone those things that it should do and engages in things that it should not do. Left undone is the provision of certain essential strategic industrial roads.
A national issue is that we do not take enough pride in what our engineers have produced. Figures from Japanese industry show that more than half of all new patents taken out anywhere in the world are based on ideas that have originated from the UK. We should take immense pride in what we have done. However, we cannot sit back and think that all is well on the basis of what Japanese

industry has said. We have worsening shortage problems. We have a shortage of qualified engineers in systems engineering, aerospace engineering, automotive design engineering and electronic and software engineering. There is the perennial shortage of technicians. Alas, the number of students undertaking teacher training in science, technology and mathematics is falling.
We should think carefully about the learning and skills councils that the Government are setting up. The evidence that the Engineering Employers Federation has given is as follows:
Many employers are afraid that the proposed Learning Skills Councils will become supplier driven instead of demand led; that the employer work-based route will become even more subservient to the academic/qualification pathway than already exists.
In tackling the problem of skill shortages, I ask the Government to reflect on the Learning and Skills Bill.
Dot.com technologies, excellent and growing as they are, are not enough to sustain virtually full employment. They cannot do it all on their own. I am all for young people mastering the internet and technology, as so many of them do, but I wish that more of them would master one major European language as well. The languages that young people learn at school and university will do so much in future to help industry export to the critical European market.
I end my speech with one question for the Government. The latest inflation report overview from the Bank of England states:
The paramount objective of UK monetary policy is to meet the 2½% inflation target.
Is that enough after three years? Should not the paramount objective of UK monetary policy now be a strengthened industrial base? The Bank of England statement is all right as far as it goes, but in the year 2000 it is not wide enough, and it is not doing enough to create more jobs in industry, to create more investment in industry and to make the UK once again a powerful industrial base.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: I begin by noting that two pieces of good news have emerged recently. First, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made an announcement today that will reassure many people in the aircraft industry around the country. Many of my constituents work at the Rolls Royce plant in Coventry, and others work in the supply side of the industry. My right hon. Friend's announcement will be very important for them.
Yesterday's announcement by Marconi is the other piece of good news, especially for Coventry which, like other cities, suffered from the recessions experienced during the years of the previous Government. However, the Marconi announcement owed a lot to the endeavours of the local authority—the leader of the council went so far as to go to America to conduct negotiations. Marconi takes an interest in the education system in Coventry and, as a result, the firm knows that the engineers that it will need in the future will be produced. The firm also contributes to social programmes, and Coventry has benefited from that too.
I was a little alarmed by an earlier intervention about Massey Ferguson, and it would be remiss of me not to mention it. Although we must not be too alarmist about the matter, it is true that Massey Ferguson depends on


exports and that those exports are affected by the strength of the pound. There is no doubt that the strength of the pound is important, but it should not be assumed that Massey Ferguson will pull out of Coventry. The company's labour force deserves a tribute: over the years, many jobs have been lost, but the workers who have remained have increased their productivity and have accommodated changes in management structures and techniques.
I hope that the Government will take note of my remarks with regard to Massey Ferguson, and also accept that the strength of the pound was a major factor—if not the decisive one—in what happened recently with Rover. I am a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and we heard much evidence to that effect.
I have contact with businesses small and large, and there is no denying that the strength of the pound is a problem. The Government must think seriously about it, although I note that the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), has said that the strength of the pound demonstrates that the economy is very healthy. That may be true, but we must not allow it to destroy the economy. I am not an economist, but my constituents are worried about these matters, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider them.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) opened the debate by suggesting that, because members of the Government Front Bench have no experience of business, that somehow disqualifies them from being members of the Government, or that they are incompetent. However, I remind the hon. Lady that one does not have to be able to drive a car to understand traffic regulations or the rules of the road. I think that the hon. Lady should think seriously about that.
Earlier, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton spoke about the negotiations that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had conducted, and she acknowledged that over the years I had gained some experience of industrial relations. I can tell her that negotiators are only as good as the information that they get from each other. They also have to rely on the integrity of their opponents.
If there is a loss of trust, negotiations are impossible and no agreement can be reached. That is an elementary truth but, in all negotiations, circumstances can change from time to time. In negotiations about job numbers, for instance, no employer will say that any job will last for ever, and a similar approach applies to all negotiations, including those between companies.
All the evidence gathered by the Select Committee made it clear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not know what BMW had in mind for Rover. People have said that he should have known, but it must be remembered that the trade unions were caught off balance too. However, what is important is that Rover starts to go from strength to strength. We must stop talking down the company's prospects, and start giving all the support that we can to the new company that has taken over the business.

Mr. Bercow: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's industrial experience, but does he accept that the Government continually put out to consultation proposals

that flow from the European Union, yet allow small businesses only six weeks to offer a response? Is not that patently inadequate?

Mr. Cunningham: I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who has no industrial experience and who cannot know anything about what happens in negotiations. He cannot know either how long it takes for small businesses to respond adequately to consultation. In short, I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman really knows what he is talking about.
The Opposition have spoken about a burden of £10 billion that has been imposed on business as a result of regulation. However, when it is broken down, that total covers the costs incurred when employees take time off for hospital appointments, for example, or for holidays. Those costs represent part of the normal overheads of business.
The Opposition must get their act together if they want to move into the enterprise culture. When it comes to trade and industry, the Government have no need to take any lessons from Opposition Members who have no great experience in such matters. They have not run much in the way of business, and so cannot be too critical of other people.
I know that some of my colleagues have waited two or three hours to contribute to the debate, so I shall end by urging the Government to consider the effect that the strong pound is having on this country's manufacturing base. That effect is especially evident in the west midlands and Coventry.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I start by expressing my long-held view that manufacturing industry is the only sustainable, non-inflationary source of economic growth. Governments or political parties neglect or ignore that fact at their peril.
Most of the Macclesfield borough is in my constituency, and a study published over the weekend showed that a higher proportion of the major businesses there make a profit than in any other town or city in the northern half of the United Kingdom. The tables in the report, which was compiled by the business information service Dun and Bradstreet, are based on the country's 50,000 largest businesses, and cover 162 towns and cities across Britain.
I am delighted that Macclesfield should be found to be the most successful northern town, and that it came 12th in the table of the top 20 towns in the United Kingdom. However, although large businesses such as Astra Zeneca and British Aerospace Systems Regional Aircraft plc contribute to that success, there are many small and medium-sized businesses in the area. They include Spectus plc, Gradus Ltd., Rosslab Ltd., County Labels Ltd., Whitaker Technical Plastics Ltd., Statiflo Ltd., Flock Print Ltd. and Henry and Leigh Slater Ltd. They are some of the range of businesses that contribute to the success of the area that I represent. I am very proud of their achievements too.
In July, I will have the important and pleasant task of presenting an Investor in People award to an excellent company called Microshape, which has been based in my Macclesfield constituency since 1993. Microshape is one such success story, having brilliantly bridged the yawning


gap between innovation and marketing. I t is a specialist extrusion tooling manufacturer—of PVC windows and doors—for the plastics industry. It is the United Kingdom's leading supplier of extrusion tooling. The company designs, manufactures and commissions extrusion tools. There are very few independent extrusion toolmakers, as the hon. Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) knows well, so Microshape has a virtual niche market. The majority of its competitors are in Germany and Austria.
In the past year, Microshape has invested £500,000 on improved machinery to automate the manufacturing process. As a result of its growth, the company is due to relocate to new purpose-built premises in Macclesfield. That represents an opportunity for a company to create a world-class environment, for the benefit of employees and customers alike. I believe that the future of Microshape now looks brighter than at any time in the past.
I say that not to give the Government a pat on the back. Macclesfield, after all, is represented by a Conservative and independent Member of Parliament and Conservatives have had overall control of the council, even through the Conservative party's bleak times.
There were certainly heavy job losses in manufacturing under the previous Government, from 1979 to 1997. However, in May 1997, despite sometimes avoiding admitting it, the new Government inherited low inflation and the lowest unemployment rate of the major European Union states. I say that not just as a Conservative—it was said by someone who was not a particular supporter of the Conservative party. Adair Turner, the former head of the Confederation of British Industry, said in September 1999:
Like the US, but unlike some other European countries, we now achieve low unemployment with minimal inflationary pressure…this reflects the impact of the profound Labour market liberalisation introduced by the previous Government in the eighties and early nineties.
We can bandy statistics across the Chamber, but in the previous Parliament, from 1992 to 1997, the number of people employed in manufacturing rose by some 70,000. Under Labour, the net loss of manufacturing jobs stands, after three years, at 206,000.
This country has had a long history and a proud tradition of inventiveness and enterprise. To the present day, we enjoy a wealth of innovation and talent. Although the UK has the innovation and enterprise required to stimulate and sustain economic growth, a key link is broken then with the further development and marketing stages that I believe are vital for a manufacturing success story. After all, the second report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology states:
The major part of university and public sector activity is research, directed at acquiring knowledge. The major part of industrial activity is development, directed at achieving what the market wants.
That is where I believe that we fall down and squander our talents and opportunities. The UK's science base is good; it produces more innovative ideas than are taken up commercially. The UK is strong in scientific invention, but weak at applying and exploiting inventions and enterprise in a marketable form.
I turn now to the clothing and textiles industry, which I know well. We appear to have a death wish as far as manufacturing is concerned. Have successive Governments ever been able to understand the worn-out cliché "being competitive"? With the retail chain stores looking for price reductions year on year, and taking into consideration the balance sheets of all the suppliers to the retail outlets, it is my view that the writing has been on the wall for the past 18 or 20 years.
In Germany, firms can borrow money at one third of the price that applies in the United Kingdom, and they have three times as long to pay it back. In addition, retail stores in this country are looking for a 320 per cent. mark up on the goods that they purchase from their suppliers.
The continuous drain on retail companies competing against each other at lower and lower prices has virtually destroyed the clothing and textiles industry in the UK.

Mr. John Cryer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Winterton: I am afraid not, because I do not have the time.
I may be unpopular with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) when I say that the demands of the City for companies to produce dividends that are impossible to achieve is a contributory factor.
As with all of manufacturing, matters have not always been helped by the Government. A lack of joined-up government between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence has let down textile producers in relation to Her Majesty's Government in sourcing goods.
Waterproof jackets costing a total of £1 million have been purchased for our Navy from Germany. Why? There are good suppliers in this country. A further £6.5 million worth of combat kit for the Army was also purchased in Germany, putting 100 jobs at risk in Cumbernauld. Some 120,000 camouflage jackets and trousers were purchased from Belgium. Why, when we have super, excellent manufacturers in this country? Army boots were ordered from Brazil, forcing the closure of the last footwear factory in Wales, with the loss of 65 jobs. The Government are—if I may be excused for using this phrase—putting the boot into our textiles industry.
I could also refer to the climate change levy, which will add tremendous costs to industry. It seems, from time to time, that the Government make it harder for industry to be competitive. The Engineering Employers Federation is concerned that there are many companies outside the potential scope for energy efficiency agreements, whose extra costs due to the levy will far exceed their small rebate on national insurance.
The EEF believes that extending negotiated agreements, to which I hope that the Minister will refer, is much more likely to secure a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions than leaving companies to respond to a tax price signal.
My interest in manufacturing is long established. I have, in my party, been one of the very few people who has stood up for this vital sector—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Ottaway.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: Time is short, so I shall not dwell too long on the speeches, other than to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has demonstrated how well Macclesfield is served by its Conservative and independent Member of Parliament.
The opening speeches in the debate could not have provided a sharper contrast. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) showed, with flair and imagination, why Britain has slipped in the international competitiveness league, to such an extent that Government supporters actually asked her what they should be doing. What a contrast that was with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He repeated endlessly that he would take no lectures from anybody, and seemed proud of the extra burden of regulation that he has imposed on Britain's industry. At least he had the decency to admit that he had read our "Commonsense Revolution".
I should like to dwell on the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), who unfortunately is not here. I did not agree much with what he said, apart from the compliments that he paid to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). I see that the hon. Gentleman is coming into the Chamber. Let me say to him that despite not agreeing with much of what he said, we respect the sincerity with which he made his speech and his commitment to his constituency.
The hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) was right to emphasise the support for small business—in particular, the enterprise zones and business links. I hope that she recalls that they were both Conservative ideas.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel) emphasised the importance of transport to the economy.
The charge against the present Government is that during their three years in office they have failed British industry, in particular manufacturing, and much of the blame must lie with the DTI and the Treasury. In 1997 Labour's manifesto said:
we will…promote dynamic and competitive business and industry at home and abroad.
It is our case that they have not only failed to do so, but have made matters worse.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), in a telling speech, commented on the fact that the Government had inherited a golden economic legacy of sustainable growth, low inflation and falling unemployment. Manufacturing industry was prospering after years of decline. Consecutive Conservative Governments had provided a competitive environment for UK manufacturers through measures such as trade union reform, low taxation and light regulation.
Since then Labour has slowly squandered its legacy. Business has become disillusioned. The other day the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce said:
The rhetoric is good, but the Government seems to be unaware that its actions seem to be working against creating a better climate for business.

We have a Government who are clearly not at ease with themselves. They talk the language of a new economy, but their instincts lie in the other direction. A commentator recently likened them to religious converts who sang the hymns but did not know what the words meant. They talk right, but they act left. They do their best to obscure the truth. The red book is indecipherable. Budget commentators refuse to be drawn into instant comment so that they can work out what the Chancellor has said.
But as the mirrors are put back into storage, as the smoke drifts away, the true picture begins to emerge. Yes, they have cut the headline rate of corporation tax to 30 per cent. Yes, they have cut it to 20 per cent. for small businesses. But it is the usual story: they are the headlines; the underlying truth is very different.
Rover is still in difficulties. Car production at Dagenham is ending. Component industries are under threat. In my Croydon constituency yesterday Avon, the tyre maker, announced 150 redundancies on the back of cancelled contracts from Rover and Ford. Strong communities face bleak futures.
Over the last three years more than 200,000 jobs have been lost in British manufacturing. It is struggling. Exporters are hit. Investment is threatened. Profit margins are shrinking. Whatever happened to that election pledge to promote competitive business? Their attack on industry has been savage.
Company pension funds have been hit, with firms such as Tesco having to go to their employees for bigger contributions. The Government changed the system for advance payment of corporation tax, a measure costing billions. Road fuel duties are hitting profits. So are stamp duty rises. The windfall tax on privatised utilities was mean and vindictive. The climate change levy will—another point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield—impose a huge increase in taxation on manufacturing. The tax will harm energy-intensive businesses, principally manufacturers. Research indicates that it will destroy 150,000 jobs over the next decade.
Just when Britain is leading the high-tech race to make industry more competitive the Government introduce IR35, a hard-hitting tax on the self-employed, driving our best people overseas. IT consultant Steven Weaver writes:
I am ashamed to say that I voted for this business hostile Government…I have no wish to remain in a country that punishes enterprise instead of encouraging it. My company turned down six months' further work in the UK implementing e-commerce systems for our major telecommunications company, entirely because of IR35.
And—can you believe it, Mr. Deputy Speaker?—just as the exodus is starting, the Department for Education and Employment announces a fast-track work permit route because—surprise, surprise—it has discovered that there is a skill shortage in the IT sector.
The Budget a few weeks ago hit the aggregates and construction industry. The changes to double taxation relief will cost manufacturers and other British companies that invest abroad billions a year. They will make Britain one of the least attractive locations for international companies seeking to relocate. Is that what the Government meant when they said that they would
promote…industry at home and abroad?


It comes as no surprise that Sir Clive Thompson, the CBI President, has said:
The Government has introduced a series of well-camouflaged taxes which has put the tax burden firmly on to business. Changes by the Chancellor since 1997 will push up business taxation by almost £5 billion a year for the first five years of the Labour Government.
He made that comment before hearing the Prime Minister's speech to the CBI tonight. That comes on top of the £5 billion a year in new red tape with which businesses are having to contend.
The British Chambers of Commerce declared that Labour's honeymoon with business was over. Its chief executive said:
I think business attitudes may well have reached a watershed. There is growing disillusionment with this Government's pro-business credentials. There is a feeling that they are not hearing us. They listen but do not hear…It is becoming incredibly difficult for business to match the rhetoric to the reality.
It is no wonder that Lord Haskins, Labour's own business guru, said:
entrepreneurs are being distracted from running and growing their businesses by the cumulative burden of taxation and regulation.
For the last seven years we have had a prolonged period of economic stability, with steady growth and low inflation. Over the last three years the economy has continued to perform well. That has to be welcomed on all sides of the House. But the Government should not fall into the trap of thinking that they invented economic growth. It began in 1992, and unemployment started falling in 1993. That is why in 1997 the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, an organisation that Labour was keen on quoting when in opposition, said:
the prospects for obtaining sustained output, growth and low inflation are the best in 30 years.
That is the situation that Labour inherited.
But the House should be quite clear that below the surface the sharks are circling. The tax and regulatory burden is hurting. The problems are a symptom of the Government's failure to understand the challenges of the global economy. They are leading us in the wrong direction.
In the last Budget, the Chancellor started taking risks. Savings have collapsed. The International Monetary Fund, the Institute of Directors and the CBI have all predicted that the Chancellor's latest Budget will put further pressure on interest rates. That is bound to affect Britain's competitiveness.
To cope with this, Britain is faced with a clear choice. We can either follow the European model of higher taxation and greater regulation or head in the direction of lower taxation and a smaller regulatory burden, as found in Asia and the United States. Given the growth of global competitive pressures, the answer is—to this party at least—self-evident.
But what surprises us most is that, given our successful economy, the Government are going in the opposite direction. The tax burden has risen by 2 per cent. since 1997. Red tape is endangering our competitive position. The Government are going in the wrong direction now, as they did in the past. In opposition, they opposed every privatisation, even though they now admit that we were right. However, even in government their limited vision shows.
The lack of industrial strategy is evident. Subsidy is available for coal, but not for shipbuilding; it may be available for cars. We must have a strategy based on a proper understanding of the global economy. We need to be agile, quick on our feet and able to adapt to world conditions, as and when they develop.
Competitiveness is everything, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) demonstrated in the last Parliament. But the Government have a problem: they are in hock to the unions and they cannot break out. In The Times last Thursday, under the headline "Unions plot to hijack Labour policy", there appeared a report that began:
Britain's seven biggest trade unions have joined forces in a concerted attempt to dictate policy to Tony Blair on manufacturing industry.
He who pays the piper calls the tune. The Government are stuck with it. Nothing better illustrates why they talk right, but act left.
The Government should listen to John Edmonds, the leader of the GMB. He said:
Thousands of jobs are being lost every week in the very heartland areas that the Labour Party is supposed to be cultivating in the run up to the next election … Tony Blair should wake up and smell the coffee.
What are they saying in Labour's heartlands—in a typical constituency, such as Sedgefield? An article about the Newton Aycliffe working men's club stated:
Eddie Cadd, 61, a retired factory worker, said that new Labour's priorities since 1997 had been "all wrong…People here are worried about their jobs, about their pensions, about the things that really matter. But all he cares about—
That is the Prime Minister—
are things like foxhunting, devolution and abolishing the House of Lords. What difference does that make to us?
Another person at the club said:
All of us here are staunch Labour. But in certain areas we know the Tories were better for us than Labour are now. If we voted according to common sense, instead of sticking to our roots, maybe we would all vote Tory and that lot would never get in again.
It is to the Conservative party that the nation will look for solutions. The Government are victims of their own rhetoric. They have no answers to the challenges facing the nation. They are victims of their own spin. They raised expectations to such a degree that it is impossible for them to deliver. We know that; the British people know that—the workers of Dagenham and Croydon certainly know that. The Government must live with the consequences.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): I was interested to hear that the Tories left us such a wonderful economic inheritance. Did they? Let us examine the appalling economic inheritance that we actually received from the previous Tory Government.
The Conservatives left Britain's record of economic stability among the worst of the G7 countries. Since 1979, Britain had suffered the two deepest and longest recessions since the war, as well as one of the largest booms. Among the G7 countries, only Canada experienced more growth instability during those 18 years than the UK under the Tories.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, 1 million jobs were lost in manufacturing and 1 million businesses went under. A total of 2 million jobs disappeared. Interest rates were more than 10 per cent. for four years.
What golden legacy led to Black Wednesday in 1992? On that day, interest rates were 10 per cent. when we started work; 12 per cent. by 11 o'clock; and by 3 pm, they were set to be 15 per cent. That is the record of the Tory Government, who were led by the Black Wednesday horror team of the Chancellor—now Lord Lamont—and the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the present shadow Chancellor, none other than the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo).
Poor growth and productivity performance were—at least partly—reflected in under-investment. In every year since 1960, the UK invested a lower share of gross domestic product than the OECD average. During the last full international economic cycle from 1982 to 1993, the UK under the Tories invested a lower share of GDP than any G7 country.
The Labour Government inherited a history of large budget deficits and a steeply rising burden of public debt, while public investment had been neglected. We have no lessons to learn from the Opposition's record of failure and mismanagement—none whatever.
What have the Government done? Let us consider our record. [Interruption.] For the third year running, inflation is in line with our target and is at a historically low level. The economy is forecast to grow steadily—by between 2.75 and 3.25 per cent. this year and between 2.25 and 2.75 per cent. next year and the year after. At one time, long-term interest rates were 2 per cent. or more above those of Germany. They are now level with the German rate—showing that people have confidence in a low-inflation future for Britain. That is a platform from which businesses can plan for the longer term with greater confidence.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) for his work towards the long-term future of Longbridge. He referred to the role of the banks. I emphasise that the Bank of England is keen to ensure that its existing network of 7,000 business contacts relays regional information back to it as part of the process for setting interest rates and making other decisions.
We cut borrowing by £40 billion during our first three years in office. We are on course to meet the two strict fiscal rules—[Interruption.] In the Budget, we decided to lock in greater fiscal stability next year and the year after than we had promised in last year's Budget and in the

pre-Budget Report. Because of the tough decisions we took to cut the deficit during our first two years and lower longer-term interest rates, debt interest payments—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We cannot have these conversations between hon. Members while the Minister is speaking—[HON. MEMBERS: "Over there."] Order. I know where the noise is coming from.

Miss Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One can but conclude that, although the Opposition did not know the answers when they were in government and clearly do not know them now, they do not want to hear about the policies that the Government are successfully pursuing.
As a result of the tough decisions we took to cut the deficit, debt interest payments will be £4 billion a year lower, so we shall be able to repay debt. Last year, we repaid £3 billion; this year, it will be £12 billion; next year, it will be £6 billion and £5 billion the year after that. That is indeed the third way in operation.
Let us consider the previous Government's record on manufacturing output and employment. Between 1979 and 1997, manufacturing employment fell by more than 2.5 million. In the early 1990s, when interest rates rose to 15 per cent. for a whole year, manufacturing output fell by more than 7 per cent; manufacturing investment fell by 28 per cent.; and more than 1 million manufacturing jobs were lost.
Since the 1997 general election, manufacturing employment has fallen by about 160,000 altogether. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks, we should compare that figure with the yearly reductions between 1979 and 1997—140,000 manufacturing jobs were lost for every year of Tory government.

Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?

Miss Johnson: I am sorry, I cannot give way. There is a limit on speeches and many Government Back-Benchers who wanted to contribute to the debate have unfortunately been unable to do so.
From May 1997, output rose by 16 per cent. to reach its highest ever point—in the fourth quarter of 1999. During the past three months, output rose by 1.6 per cent. The volume of manufacturing exports rose 9.5 per cent. in the year to February 2000. Productivity is increasing by about 5 per cent. per annum—the fastest rate for five years. Manufacturing investment rose 4 per cent. during the latest quarter—the last quarter of 1999.
Manufacturing employment continues to contract, but our experience matches that of the United States; roughly the same proportion of people in the US and in the UK are employed in manufacturing. I understand and sympathise with those manufacturing sectors for which the current fall in the euro is a real problem. Such a euro-sterling exchange rate cannot be justified by any view of the long-term economic fundamentals, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor remarked last week.
However, it would be wrong and counterproductive to adopt the short-term measures proposed by some people, including some Opposition Members. That would indeed be to repeat past mistakes. Instead, we should look to the long term. We must reject a return to the short-term, quick fix that would put at risk the long-term stability that is the foundation for steady growth, investment and job creation. Mervyn King, the deputy governor of the Bank of England, said:
Stability must be the watchword of policy.
We have avoided recession in the economy and we now have healthy growth. That is why there are now almost 900,000 more people in work than there were in 1997 and that is why new jobs are being created in manufacturing. In the past week, the creation of 500 new jobs has been announced at Vauxhall, 150 at a new Laird plant in Wolverhampton and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry remarked, 2,200 new high-quality jobs are being created by Marconi in the west midlands.
Manufacturing has responded. Productivity among electrical and optical equipment manufacturers has risen by 22 per cent. since 1997 and, in the chemical industry, it has risen by 8 per cent. British car factories are among the most productive in the world. I was saddened to hear some Members talking down our manufacturing business in general and our car production in particular.
Let us consider just one or two aspects of the car industry. I acknowledge that these are difficult times for vehicle manufacturers throughout the world, but a number of recent announcements show the strength of vehicle manufacture in the UK. Peugeot doubled its production in the UK last year; Jaguar achieved record sales and record production; Nissan announced 800 new jobs at Sunderland; and Toyoda announced 400 new jobs in Rotherham. This year, Audi announced an investment of £45 million in Cosworth engineering to expand its site in Northampton, doubling its work force to 1,500. The recent Vauxhall statement, to which the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel) referred, announced £189 million of new investment that will create 500 new jobs at the Luton factory. Honda has announced £130 million of investment in Swindon to allow the production of a new model, and last month's sales figures showed that British-built cars increased their sales against the general trend.
Since 1997, more than £2.6 billion of new investment has been announced with 8,750 new jobs created. We accept that difficult decisions must be made, but that is the context in which those decisions are being made. That is the picture of the UK industry—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not a good thing for the Chair to keep intervening, but there is too much noise in the Chamber. I appeal to hon. Members; the hon. Lady is entitled to be heard.

Miss Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I again draw the conclusion that Conservative Members do not want to listen to the facts of this Government's economic good-news story. It is a good-news story that extends to many sectors of manufacturing despite, we acknowledge, the difficulties under which they are working.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), because her contribution recognised the wider measures that the Government are taking for business. We have the lowest corporation tax levels ever—businesses' corporation tax bills have been cut by 25 per cent.—and we have introduced the new research and development tax credit, investment allowances, the venture capital fund and the new venture capital arrangements.
I could go on at great length. [HON. MEMBERS: "More, more!"] I would be delighted to go on at greater length, but I am afraid that Conservative Members have shown no inclination to listen as indeed they have shown no inclination, in what they have said today or done since 1997, to learn from the mistakes of the previous Administration. They have not learned from the past. Indeed, in November 1999, the then shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), predicted a sharper downturn, and said that that was not reflected in the Government's complacency at the time. That prediction, as with all the Tories' predictions, proved to be wrong.
In contrast, this Government know how to manage the economy. We are looking to the long term, delivering a platform for stability and steady growth and delivering policies for supporting manufacturing and British industry in the competitive global economy. We are optimistic that British manufacturing and British business can match the best in the world. All that would be put at risk by the Conservative party—the boom-and-bust party that pursued short-term economic policies that produced two of this country's deepest and longest recessions and destroyed millions of jobs in manufacturing.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

Division No. 195]
[7.5 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Allan, Richard



Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Chidgey, David


Baker, Norman
Chope, Christopher


Baldry, Tony
Clappison, James


Ballard, Jackie
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Beggs, Roy
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Beith, Rt Hon A J



Bercow, John
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Beresford, Sir Paul
Collins, Tim


Blunt, Crispin
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Body, Sir Richard
Cotter, Brian


Boswell, Tim
Cran, James


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Curry, Rt Hon David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Brady, Graham
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Brake, Tom
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Brand, Dr Peter
Duncan Smith, Iain


Brazier, Julian
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Breed, Colin
Evans, Nigel


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Faber, David


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fabricant, Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fallon, Michael


Burnett, John
Fearn, Ronnie


Burns, Simon
Flight, Howard


Burstow, Paul
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Butterfill, John
Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman



Fraser, Christopher


Cash, William
Gale, Roger






Garnier, Edward
Moss, Malcolm


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Nicholls, Patrick


Gibb, Nick
Norman, Archie


Gidley, Ms Sandra
Oaten, Mark


Gill, Christopher
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Öpik, Lembit


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Ottaway, Richard


Green, Damian
Page, Richard


Greenway, John
Paice, James


Grieve, Dominic
Paterson, Owen


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Pickles, Eric


Hammond, Philip
Randall, John


Hancock, Mike
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Harris, Dr Evan
Rendel, David


Harvey, Nick
Robathan, Andrew


Hawkins, Nick
Robertson, Laurence


Hayes, John
Ruffley, David


Heald, Oliver
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
St Aubyn, Nick


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Sanders, Adrian


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Sayeed, Jonathan


Horam, John
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Shepherd, Richard


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Soames, Nicholas



Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Keetch, Paul
Spring, Richard


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Steen, Anthony



Stunell, Andrew


Key, Robert
Swayne, Desmond


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Syms, Robert


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Kirkwood, Archy
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Lansley, Andrew
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Leigh, Edward
Townend, John


Letwin, Oliver
Tredinnick, David


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Trend, Michael


Livsey, Richard
Tyler, Paul


Llwyd, Elfyn
Viggers, Peter


Loughton, Tim
Walter, Robert


Luff, Peter
Waterson, Nigel


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Webb, Steve


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Wells, Bowen


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Whitney, Sir Raymond


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Wilkinson, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Willetts, David


Madel, Sir David
Willis, Phil


Major, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Malins, Humfrey
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Maples, John
Yeo, Tim


Mates, Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Maude, Rt Hon Francis



Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Tellers for the Ayes:


May, Mrs Theresa
Mr. Stephen Day and


Moore, Michael
Mr. Peter Atkinson.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Beard, Nigel


Ainger, Nick
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bell, Martin (Talton)


Alexander, Douglas
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Allen, Graham
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bennett, Andrew F


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Benton, Joe


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Bermingham, Gerald


Ashton, Joe
Best, Harold


Austin, John
Betts, Clive


Barnes, Harry
Blackman, Liz


Barron, Kevin
Blears, Ms Hazel


Bayley, Hugh
Blizzard, Bob





Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Borrow, David
Foulkes, George


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Fyfe, Maria


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Galloway, George


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Gapes, Mike


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Gardiner, Barry



George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Browne, Desmond
Gerrard, Neil


Buck, Ms Karen
Gibson, Dr Ian


Burden, Richard
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Burgon, Colin
Godman, Dr Norman A


Butler, Mrs Christine
Godsiff, Roger


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Goggins, Paul


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Cann, Jamie
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Caplin, Ivor
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Casale, Roger
Grocott, Bruce


Caton, Martin
Grogan, John


Cawsey, Ian
Gunnell, John


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hain, Peter


Clapham, Michael
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hanson, David


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Healey, John


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clelland, David
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Coaker, Vernon
Hepburn, Stephen


Coffey, Ms Ann
Heppell, John


Colman, Tony
Hesford, Stephen


Connarty, Michael
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hill, Keith


Corbett, Robin
Hinchliffe, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Corston, Jean
Hoey, Kate


Cousins, Jim
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Cranston, Ross
Hope, Phil


Crausby, David
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cummings, John
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)



Humble, Mrs Joan


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hutton, John


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Iddon, Dr Brian


Dalyell, Tam
Illsley, Eric


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Darvill, Keith
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jenkins, Brian


Davidson, Ian
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)



Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Denham, John
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Donohoe, Brian H



Doran, Frank
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Drew, David
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Edwards, Huw
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Efford, Clive
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Ennis, Jeff
Kemp, Fraser


Etherington, Bill
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Khabra, Piara S


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Kidney, David


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Kilfoyle, Peter


Flint, Caroline
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Flynn, Paul
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Kumar, Dr Ashok






Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Laxton, Bob
Norris, Dan


Lepper, David
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Leslie, Christopher
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Olner, Bill


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Linton, Martin
Palmer, Dr Nick


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Pearson, Ian


Lock, David
Pendry, Tom


Love, Andrew
Perham, Ms Linda


McAvoy, Thomas
Pickthall, Colin


McCabe, Steve
Pike, Peter L


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Plaskitt, James


McDonagh, Siobhain
Pollard, Kerry


Macdonald, Calum
Pond, Chris


McDonnell, John
Pound, Stephen


McFall, John
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


McIsaac, Shona
Prescott, Rt Hon John


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Primarolo, Dawn


Mackinlay, Andrew
Prosser, Gwyn


McNulty, Tony
Purchase, Ken


MacShane, Denis
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Mactaggart, Fiona
Quinn, Lawrie


McWilliam, John
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Rapson, Syd


Mallaber, Judy
Raynsford, Nick


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Martlew, Eric
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Maxton, John
Rooney, Terry


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Meale, Alan
Rowlands, Ted


Merron, Gillian
Roy, Frank


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Ruane, Chris


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Ruddock, Joan


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Miller, Andrew
Ryan, Ms Joan


Mitchell, Austin
Sarwar, Mohammad


Moffatt, Laura
Savidge, Malcolm


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Sawford, Phil


Moran, Ms Margaret
Sedgemore, Brian


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Shaw, Jonathan


Morley, Elliot
Sheerman, Barry


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Shipley, Ms Debra



Short, Rt Hon Clare


Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)



Singh, Marsha


Mountford, Kali
Skinner, Dennis


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mudie, George
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mullin, Chris
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)






Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)



Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Southworth, Ms Helen
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Vis, Dr Rudi


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Ward, Ms Claire


Steinberg, Gerry
Wareing, Robert N


Stevenson, George
Watts, David


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
White, Brian


Stinchcombe, Paul
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wicks, Malcolm


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Straw, Rt Hon Jack



Stringer, Graham
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wills, Michael


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Winnick, David



Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Wood, Mike


Temple-Morris, Peter
Woolas, Phil


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Worthington, Tony


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wray, James


Timms, Stephen
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Tipping, Paddy
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Todd, Mark
Wyatt, Derek


Touhig, Don



Trickett, Jon
Tellers for the Noes:


Truswell, Paul
Mr. David Jamieson and



Mr. Greg Pope.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House recognises that industry does not want a return of the boom and bust policies of the previous Government, with interest rates of 15 per cent, inflation above 10 per cent and soaring budget deficits; welcomes the Government's decisive action in taking politics out of interest rate decisions; notes that employment is currently 880,000 higher than it was when the Government came into office, and that long-term interest rates over the past year have been at their lowest for 35 years; welcomes the measures that the Government has taken to encourage enterprise, investment and innovation which particularly help manufacturing businesses; welcomes the Government's view that where firms are in difficulty the Government has a role in helping people through change as opposed to the previous Government's laissez-faire approach; and condemns the Opposition for its record in government, when manufacturing employment declined by 2¾ million.

Future of the Teaching Profession

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mrs. Theresa May: I beg to move,
That this House notes the failure of the Government to meet its target for recruitment into initial teacher training and the failure of Government schemes to encourage maths and science graduates into the teaching profession; views with concern the recent poll which showed that over half the profession expects to leave in the next decade and the fact that more teachers are leaving the profession than joining: deplores the Government's failure to deal with the bureaucratic workload faced by teachers, despite teachers' concerns and evidence that this is one of the key factors causing teachers to leave; recognises that this leads to children suffering in the quality of their education; and calls upon the Government to take urgent action to reduce the bureaucratic workload on teachers, to trust the professionals and to let teachers teach.
I am pleased to open this debate on the important question of the future of the teaching profession. I should like immediately to put on the record our recognition of, and thanks to, the dedicated and committed teachers in our schools who work hard to provide a good quality of education for their pupils. The quality of education that any child receives depends fundamentally on the quality of the teachers. Standards in schools depend on teaching standards, which is why the future of the teaching profession is so important.
The profession stands at a crossroads. The number of recruits is falling and many teachers are leaving the profession. Teachers are stressed, demoralised and overburdened by bureaucracy. They are imposed on by Government and uncertain about performance-related pay. That picture will not encourage people into the profession. However, if we are to ensure that all children receive a high-quality education that is right for them and which aspires to achieve their full potential, we must re-establish teaching as a valued profession of choice.
It has been said that
education is this Government's top priority. The teaching profession is critical to—
their—
mission.
First-rate teachers and head teachers are indispensable to giving all…children the best possible start in life. Those are the Prime Minister's words, and they ring hollow with teachers who, as a newly qualified female primary school teacher said, feel "deflated and disheartened". A male primary school teacher with nine years experience said:
Every teacher in our school feels demoralised, undervalued and overworked. Three of the younger teachers in my school are actively seeking alternatives to teaching including myself.
I agree with the Secretary of State that
Our schools depend, above all, on the skill, commitment and dedication of our heads, teachers and support staff.
Despite that, we have not had a main debate in the House on the future of the teaching profession for three years. I wonder why. Could it be that, despite the Secretary of State's protestation that
Teacher recruitment is a top priority

the number of people recruited to initial teacher training courses has fallen steadily under this Government? Could it be because this year the Government failed again to meet their target for recruitment to initial teacher training by 10 per cent.—more than 3,000 recruits—and by 17 per cent. for secondary teachers?
Could it be because, in the last year for which figures are available, almost 2,000 more teachers left the profession than joined it? Could the Government's reluctance to discuss the teaching profession be because, by mid-March, just over 9,000 applicants for secondary teacher training had been received—more than 1,000 fewer than the same time last year and 20 per cent. less than the same time two years ago? That figure of 9,000 compares with a total of more than 14,000 available places, although the number of available places itself is down on last year, despite the fact that the Government failed to meet their target. We need more trainees, not fewer.
The impact of the failure in teacher recruitment is felt in schools. Almost one in 20 teachers uses a temporary or supply teacher, which has an impact on children and on the education that they receive. That is especially so in schools where there is a high turnover of supply teachers or many supply teachers, such as the inner-London school about which I heard recently, which has as many as 20 supply teachers.
As the Office for Standards in Education annual report said,
the quality of teaching by supply teachers is weaker than for all other groups of teachers including newly qualified and trainee teachers.
The Select Committee on Education and Employment stated:
The quality of supply teachers is a matter of serious concern.
There are many good teachers who provide supply cover, including many from Australia and New Zealand, for example, who come to this country to provide long-term supply cover, but the issue of the quality of supply teaching cannot be ignored, as schools constantly face problems in recruiting teachers and must fill vacancies with supply teachers.
The head teacher of a 1,500-pupil comprehensive school in west London recently told us of the school's problems recruiting in certain subjects. It advertised for an information and communication technology teacher, both with an allowance and without, but received no suitable applicant. ICT is a popular subject and the school wanted to offer another group in it, but it has advertised several times and no one suitable has applied.
The school advertised twice for a science teacher, received four applications, felt that it was worth interviewing only one of the applicants and decided to re-advertise. The school advertised for a curriculum manager, who would be paid at plus four points on the pay spine, but after 17 inquiries received only four applications. When advertising for a head of science recently, the school had to advertise three times before filling the post. Sadly, that experience is not unique; it is faced by schools throughout the country. It reveals a demoralised profession, in which experienced teachers are leaving in droves, which sadly has implications for the quality of education that pupils receive.
Faced with such a situation, what have the Government done? They introduced golden hellos for maths and science graduates, which are being extended to other


subjects, such as languages. However, fewer maths and science graduates apply for teacher training today than before the Government introduced their incentive scheme. The Teacher Training Agency launched MS600 18 months ago, which was designed to appeal to well-qualified mature applicants, who would train while working in school. The target was to attract 600, but the scheme was abandoned after placing only 100 trainees in 11 months—one sixth of the target. Those are yet more examples of the Government's failure to deliver.
The Government may talk of their advertising campaign and the number of expressions of interest in teacher training, but the figures show that an expression of interest is one thing and getting somebody signed up to a teacher training course is another. Indeed, even when people have trained, ensuring that they stay in the profession is another problem still. A significant number of trained teachers do not go on to practise.

Mr. Hilary Benn: What advice would the hon. Lady give to young people who are thinking about teaching as a profession? Would she encourage them to go into today's profession? It would help the debate if she made her view clear.

Mrs. May: I am perfectly happy to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. I would certainly advise young people to go into the teaching profession because I could happily tell them that the next Conservative Government would cut bureaucracy, which is one key issue that stops people applying for teaching.
Sadly, not only is it difficult to get people into training and then into the profession, a significant number of trained teachers are leaving the profession. It was sad to read a poll in The Guardian a few weeks ago showing that more than half the teaching profession is set to quit within a decade, with more than a third of teachers aged under 34 expected to quit in those 10 years. The biggest issues for teachers quitting the profession were heavy work load, followed by bureaucracy and stress.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: May I assist the hon. Lady? Has she seen the article in The Times Educational Supplement of 26 March on the problem of teacher recruitment across the industrial world, particularly in Europe? There is not just a problem in this country. Will she put her comments into the context of an international crisis in teacher recruitment?

Mrs. May: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that it is perfectly all right to say to a class of pupils, "Don't worry about having a supply teacher or about the quality of your education. It is happening elsewhere, so it's not a problem." The hon. Gentleman should face up to his Government's responsibility for doing something about the problem of teacher recruitment in our schools.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has met sixth formers, as I have. Young people, often from poor backgrounds, altruistically would

like to teach, but the prospect of a four-year teacher training course and possibly having to pay back £16,000 in loans on a teacher's salary makes doing so impossible.

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): Sixteen thousand? Where did the hon. Gentleman get that figure from?

Mrs. May: My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) is right. It is interesting that the Secretary of State calls into question his figure. One problem is the extra financial burdens on young people entering higher education and teaching that this Government imposed by introducing tuition fees and abolishing the maintenance grant.
Those wishing to train for a bachelor of education do not receive the training salary available to those studying for a postgraduate certificate of education. The bachelor of education training course is used mostly by primary school teachers. The recent fall in recruitment in primary as well as secondary schools is sad.
I referred to the issues of stress, work load and bureaucracy. Comments of primary school teachers in a recent National Union of Teachers survey included the following:
Too much to do with not enough time or help. The end result leads to the children suffering in the quality of their education.
That was from a classroom teacher of 20 years experience. Another comment, also from a teacher with 20 years experience, was:
Get off our backs and allow our professional judgment and expertise to get the best from our children—that is if there are any of us left who believe in ourselves.
There is little future in a profession in which people feel that they are technicians, doing what others say. Not only will that not encourage young people to enter the profession, it will not serve children well. If we are to encourage young people and others into teaching, we must make the profession appealing to them. That means leaving them free to get on with the job of teaching and to exercise professional judgment in the classroom. We must cut the chains of red tape and trust teachers again.

Caroline Flint: What would the hon. Lady say to the fact that, under the previous Tory Administration, 40 per cent. of 11-year-olds could not read to the standard expected for their age and, under this Government, the latest chief inspector's report shows that standards are rising and that children are benefiting? Is she saying that the choice to be made is between children benefiting from rising standards—a success that teachers should celebrate—or going back to the old system under the Conservative Government, when 40 per cent. of 11-year-olds realised neither their ambition nor their potential?

Mrs. May: The hon. Lady should have listened to the quote I gave from the primary school teacher with 20 years experience. It is strange that Labour Members now wish to quote the chief inspector. Having opposed the introduction of Ofsted and attacked the chief inspector time and again, they now pray him in aid when they want to oppose the views expressed by teachers. The primary school teacher I quoted said that the end result of the bureaucracy was that the quality of children's education suffered.
The Government have failed to tackle bureaucracy, despite giving numerous promises to do so during the past three years. They have promised to cut red tape, to give red tape a caning, to cut through red tape, to take action to cut bureaucracy, and to tackle red tape. They claim to have taken steps to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy—but what have they done? They are
working to provide an alternative to paper communication
by providing "more on the Net." Do not Ministers realise that whether information is on paper or in electronic form, it still has to be read? The plans required by the Department for Education and Employment still have to be produced, and the time that that takes cannot be reduced simply by providing the plans in electronic form, rather than on paper. It is clear that the Government do not understand the problem of paperwork.
In addition, the Government appear to have a warped sense of humour. That can be seen in their amendment to the motion, in which they claim that one of the ways in which they are improving
teaching and the rewards for teaching
is through
the Better Regulation Task Force Report on 'Red Tape Affecting Headteachers'.
That report was a damning indictment of the Government's failure to reduce bureaucracy. It described the situation under the current Government as follows:
over-elaborate processes are being used to achieve straightforward objectives, leading to unnecessary duplication and confusing excessive lines of accountability
yet the Government claim that the quality of teaching is being improved by such processes.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I speak as one who has direct experience of that sort of bureaucracy. When I was a teacher, I was in charge of delivering the science element of the national curriculum that the Conservative Government introduced. I recall also being in charge of three filing cabinets that were filled with material designed to justify the amount of paperwork that that Government had imposed on schools. The national curriculum was overly bureaucratic and probably remains so, but it is now far less bureaucratic than it was when the Conservatives introduced it.

Mrs. May: The problem with the Labour Government is that they are making things worse. I have some advice for the hon. Gentleman: at the next general election, people will be asking him not what the last Conservative Government did, but what his Government have done—and what they have done is introduce
over-elaborate processes…to achieve straightforward objectives…unnecessary duplication and confusing excessive lines of accountability.
The Government have increased the bureaucratic burdens on teachers and then told them that, if they want to lighten their load, they should stop doing things such as collating pupil reports, classroom display, administering cover and administering examinations. That misses the point entirely: the Government are creating too much paperwork and they should put their own back yard in order before telling teachers to sort out theirs.
It is time that Ministers put their money where their mouth is and cut their own bureaucracy. How did sending out 23 press releases last week help to raise standards in

education? It did not. New initiatives are being introduced at a time when teachers are coping with standard assessment tests, GCSEs and A-levels, and with all the work needed to go through the threshold of the new performance-related pay scheme. Perhaps the Government should listen to the warning given by the head of St. Clement's high school in King's Lynn: when called to Downing street to receive an award for consistent improvement, he said that he would tell the Prime Minister to
allow schools to concentrate on the real business in hand.
In addition to the bureaucracy facing them, teachers also have to cope with disruptive pupils in schools. Not only are such pupils a threat to the education of other pupils, but they are often a threat to the teachers themselves. Last September, it was reported that Unison directly blamed the Government's policy of reducing the number of exclusions for the fact that assaults on school support staff in Southampton had doubled in a year. The union said that the Government's emphasis on keeping disruptive children within schools, rather than excluding them, had resulted in staff being exposed to the threat of violent pupils. The Government should abolish their targets for reducing the number of exclusions and let teachers get on with the job of exercising the discipline that is needed in their classrooms.
Another cry I frequently hear from teachers is, "Trust us again". There is too much interference in what teachers do; it is time to let them get on with the job of teaching. The Government cannot even trust teachers to decide which computer to buy under the subsidy scheme. Teachers were told that they would be given £500 toward the cost of a computer, but they then learned that the money would be taxed. They were told that they had to show that they had been trained before they could get the money, but then that they needed to show only that they would be trained. I understand that only 15,000 teachers applied. I assume that they were worried about receiving an on-screen message from the Prime Minister saying "I love you". I do not know which they found more frightening—knowing that the message was a virus, or thinking that it might be true. The list is now closed, but the Government do not even trust teachers to go out and buy the machine they want. They have been given a list of acceptable manufacturers that happens to exclude the UK market leader in retail computer sales. What message does it send when teachers cannot even be trusted to make such a decision for themselves?
On top of all that, the Government are pushing through an overly bureaucratic, cumbersome and administratively expensive performance-related pay scheme, against the wishes of many teachers.

Mr. Richard Allan: On a point of information, will the hon. Lady tell us the name of the market-leading company that has been excluded from the list?

Mrs. May: If the hon. Gentleman chose to look at the market share listings, he would know the answer to his question: Packard Bell.
I have always said that it is right to reward good teachers and that there should be open and recognisable appraisal systems in all schools. I also believe that, whatever teachers think of the performance-related pay system, strike action is wrong because the greatest impact is suffered by children.
The Government are pushing the scheme through without proper training. Most head teachers to whom I have spoken tell me that their training was of little value because trainers did not have the answers to more than half their questions. Apparently, in one case trainers said that they did not know the answer, but if the heads wanted to write their question on a piece of yellow sticky paper and stick it on the wall, they would take the bits of paper down after the session and try to find the answers. Those head teachers were given only one day of training.
Teachers are rushing to get their applications in in time, and schools are worried about the funding implications of the scheme. As one governor of a small primary school in north Yorkshire told me this afternoon, the school has three good teachers, but it faces difficulty because it does not know whether it will get the funds to support future pay increases. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ridiculous."] I suggest that Labour Members talk to governors about the problems that they are facing, and listen to what they say.

Mr. Blunkett: What answer did the hon. Lady give to that individual? Did she say to her, "I don't know the answer, but I shall make sure I find out and write to you"? Did she say, "No, the money will not be available"? Or did she say, "Yes, the Secretary of State has made an absolutely clear pledge that the money—new money—will be made available to pay the award, that it will be consistently paid, and that it will be ring-fenced to ensure that the school does not lose out"?

Mrs. May: Had I said to that lady and other governors and teachers who have raised the issue with me that the Secretary of State had made an absolutely clear pledge, they would probably have said that it was like the Labour manifesto pledge to
raise the proportion of national income spent on education—
a pledge that the Government have failed dismally to keep.
Just as schools think seriously about whether they will be able to support teachers through the threshold, they discover that the Government have spent £4 million on a contract—one that did not even go out to tender—with Hay McBer to tell the Government what makes a good teacher, as though teachers could not have told them and as though there is only a single model of a good teacher. That simply adds insult to injury.
It is not just bureaucracy that is demoralising teachers. I hear complaints, as do others, about the increasing interference in what goes on in the classroom, and the heavy degree of prescription from the centre that is sapping the job of its scope for innovation and spontaneity. As a result, Government interference and centralisation are sapping teachers of the means and energy to inspire pupils to aspire to reach their highest potential. That is why the issue is so important.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. May: No, I have given way several times. I shall make progress.
The issue is the quality of education that our children are receiving, as a means of enabling all young people to reach their full potential. The Government are leveling

down in education and taking away the spontaneity that made the job appealing. That is why the Government are failing not just teachers, but pupils and parents.
Teachers are snowed under with bureaucratic burdens. My experience is that teachers work with whatever system they are given, but try as they might, the work load and centralisation are having an effect on what teachers can achieve in the classroom. The profession is facing a crisis, and that will not be solved by yet more initiatives, by an over-bureaucratic form of performance-related pay, or by setting up a General Teaching Council with large numbers of Government appointees.
It is difficult to recruit young people into teaching, but to ensure the future of the profession and to encourage them to enter the profession we need to show them not only the value of teachers, but that they will be treated as professionals and will be given the freedom and flexibility that they need to get on with the job, without constantly being subjected to interference from the bureaucrats in Whitehall.
I shall end with a quote from a recent survey of members of the National Union of Teachers. [Interruption.] We usually hear sniggers from the Government Benches when the NUT is mentioned. That is sad, but I hope that hon. Members will not snigger at a direct quote from a primary school teacher with 11 years experience, who said that teachers were like suns shining in the classroom for their children. She said:
Oh, let us be "suns" again, not weary, insistent personalities. Trust in us and let us shine once more.
With the burdens of bureaucracy, constant initiatives being introduced without time to get any of them properly established, performance-related pay being pushed through without proper training, and disruptive pupils being kept in school, it is hardly surprising that teachers feel let down by the Government and are leaving the profession. The Government need to cut the bureaucracy, trust the professionals again, and let the teachers teach.

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
welcomes the substantial steps taken by the Government to improve teaching and the rewards for teaching, which include the introduction of a General Teaching Council, the development of better pay for good teaching, the introduction of training salaries to improve teacher recruitment, new measures to improve the training of headteachers, the Better Regulation Task Force Report on 'Red Tape Affecting Headteachers', administrative support for schools, more classroom assistants, lower infant and junior class sizes. reform of induction and teacher training, and significant improvements in funding for school budgets and school modernisation; and notes that these measures have already reversed a legacy of budget cuts, rising class sizes and inadequate training inherited from the previous administration.
I shall make one promise to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). I promise faithfully never to send her an e-mail saying "I love you."
The hon. Lady is right about one thing, of which all of us on the Government side are mindful. At the next general election, we will be judged on our record, the improvement in children's education and the standards in our schools. The electorate probably will forget what it was like under a Conservative Government. Regrettably,


people will forget the low standards, the indifference to schools in the most deprived areas, the divisions, the conflict, the break-up of co-operation between schools in their efforts to raise standards for all children, not just for a few, and the elitism in the provision of extra resources for some and the reduction in resources for the many.

Mr. Chris Ruane: As a primary school teacher who had 15 years' experience of teaching, all under the Conservatives, may I remind my right hon. Friend of some of the other measures that they introduced? They increased the bureaucratic burden on teachers and were responsible for a drop in morale. At the National Union of Teachers conference in the early 1990s, a teacher brought on to the main stage a five-foot pile of paperwork. The national curriculum was introduced by the Conservatives without any consultation with the teaching profession. That was pure hypocrisy.

Mr. Blunkett: I agree with my hon. Friend.
In their motion, the Opposition purport to encourage and support teachers, yet, throughout her speech, the hon. Member for Maidenhead denigrated what was going on, discouraging aspiring teachers from entering the profession. She said that the teaching profession was demoralised, that teachers were being oppressed with bureaucracy, that, contrary to reality, standards were falling, that we were not allowing teachers to teach, and that the little sunshine to which she referred at the end was not shining through. The implication of her speech was that it was no good entering the teaching profession because, over the past three years, the big bad Government had brought teachers to their knees.

Mrs. May: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. I suggest that, in future, he listens a little more carefully to what I say. The quote that I gave about the "suns" was from a teacher. I know that the Secretary of State does not like listening to teachers, but all those comments came from teachers. The Government's impact on the teaching profession is causing the demoralisation. It is nothing to do with the teachers. The right hon. Gentleman's actions as Secretary of State are causing people to leave the profession.

Mr. Blunkett: I hear those things from some of the 400,000 people employed in teaching. I ask them how many teachers they think left the profession on ill health or early retirement grounds over the past few years. They say that a great many more people are leaving now, because they are under stress and they have difficulty keeping up with the standards.
I examined the figures and discovered that in 1990, 4,000 teachers left the profession on ill-health grounds. In 1997—the last year for which the Tories can carry responsibility—the figure was 4,400. Last year, it was 2,100. With premature retirement, in 1990 the number leaving was 8,100. By 1997, it had risen to 14,100. Last year, it was 2,700. That shows the terrible legacy that we inherited, and the terrible burden on teachers now.
The proposals for early retirement for teachers were changed by the previous Government precisely because they were terrified at the number of teachers leaving the profession. Teachers could not get out of the profession fast enough because the bureaucratic burdens about which

we have heard were piled on, starting with a national curriculum that was so over-burdened that the then Secretary of State was ordered by the then Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, to slim it down.
With the introduction of the key stage tests and assessments—some of the terrible things to which the hon. Lady referred—there was industrial action and one union brought a court case which resulted in the then Government backing off, slimming down the tests and putting in place resources to ensure that the tests were marked externally. That is what we inherited, and illustrates the difference between what was and what is.
There is a problem of teacher recruitment. Targets for primary school teaching have been met by the previous Government and the present Government consistently since 1993. However, targets for secondary school teacher recruitment have not been met by either Government for any of that period. That is why we decided to take decisive action. We introduced the training salary for training schools—the £13,000 for the year, with extra money to enable schools to supervise and train, to bring in mature students. It is why we provided for the £6,000 for graduate teachers so that they can work through the last year of training with the assurance that they will receive £150 a week over the nine months. It is also why postgraduate teacher trainees do not pay the tuition fee. I therefore intervened on the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) to correct him about the £16,000 debt hanging over teachers' heads.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way, but let me correct the hon. Gentleman before he asks another question. Students who, after three years of a degree course, are taking a postgraduate certificate of education, which is a one-year course—I know something about that because I took such a course—do not pay fees in their fourth year. Such students will be paid £150 a week—£6,000 over nine months—for the training. That is hardly a fourth-year bill.

Mr. Bruce: The right hon. Gentleman may be Secretary of State but I am the father of a daughter who is leaving teacher training college after a four-year teaching degree. Surely the Secretary of State knows that the majority of teachers qualify through that route. Four years multiplied by £4,000—I believe that it is now more—is £16,000 at today's prices. That is why sixth formers do not want to go to teacher training college.

Mr. Blunkett: I was not referring to the BEd qualification. My remarks were specific; I referred to postgraduate certificate of education. A BEd course is a sub-degree, undergraduate course. To put the record straight, the majority of teachers do not qualify through that route. Secondary school teachers take PGCEs; the majority do not take BEd degrees. [Interruption.] No, they do not.
There is no shortage of primary school teachers. We have met the targets that I described earlier. The hon. Member for Maidenhead was wrong to say that the maths golden hello failed; it did not. The recruitment of maths graduates increased by 17 per cent. as a result of the golden hello.
However, there is a recruitment problem. There is a problem in recruiting teachers in the industrialised world. The problem also exists in the university sector. There is


a similar age profile problem in terms of people who leave universities to that of schools. That has nothing to do with the bureaucratic burden on schools. It has nothing to do with the imposition of standards, key stage tests or the morale of primary school teachers who talk to the hon. Member for Maidenhead. We are considering universities, where the same pattern exists. We must do something about that. We must ensure that people feel and know that the teaching profession is worth entering, and that they will receive support and be valued when they are in it. It is important to convey the message that we value good teachers and that is why we intend to pay them well.

Mr. Phil Willis: It is unfair of the Secretary of State to deal only with postgraduate routes into teaching and ignore many people who become teachers, especially primary school teachers, through studying a BEd. Those people will not receive training salaries and the fees for their final year will not be paid. We will have a two-tier system: those who go through the traditional BEd route will be treated differently from those who go through a postgraduate route. Is that the way in which we value teachers?

Mr. Blunkett: First, two thirds of teachers go through the PGCE route. Secondly, I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman said whether he agreed with the package we have devised for teacher recruitment: the £13,000 trainee salary in training schools and the £6,000 that we are providing for PGCE students. That is primarily, but not exclusively, aimed at secondary school teaching, for which it is most difficult to recruit.

Mr. Willis: I am happy to say that our policy at the last general election was to give trainee teachers a 50 per cent. salary in their final year. We are delighted that the Government have adopted our policy. However, we do not believe that it is right for the policy to apply only to a specific group of students. It should be available for all students who are entering the teaching profession.

Mr. Blunkett: If we had put only the equivalent of 1p on the amount we spend on education, we could not afford the package. If we consider the measures that I described together with performance-related promotion, the uplift of £2,000 to the majority of teachers, and access to, dare I say it, the new incremental scales—the sketch writers will be enjoying a good dinner, so I will not be ribbed for using jargon, but there is no other term for incremental scales—teachers will receive substantial pay for doing a good job.
I want to pose the Opposition a simple question: when did the hon. Member for Maidenhead change her mind about performance-related pay? After the Select Committee's deliberations, when she signed up to performance-related pay, when did she decide that she no longer believed in it? Like so much Opposition policy, did she decide it when she read or heard that it would be popular for one moment in one hour in one day to say the opposite of what she had said before? Did she hope that she would mislead some people somewhere into believing that she was on their side?
On whose side is the hon. Lady? Is paying teachers well for doing a good job being on their side? Is opposing that being on their side? When asked about one's

approach, whether there will be continuity and additional money and whether a school will therefore be able to pay, is it right simply to keep silent or is it better to be honest and say, "I don't agree with the Government's actions, but money will be available because I don't want you to be under any illusions and thus fail to adhere to the targets and the threshold regulations."? Some honesty is required. I am prepared to admit that there is a recruitment problem. I am even prepared to admit that we have not cracked the problem of low morale in teaching. I expect a little honesty in return.
For example, I expect some honesty about bureaucratic burdens. Yes, there is more to be done, and we shall do more. Not only the Government, but the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, Ofsted and education authorities need to do more. Education authorities often duplicate what other agencies send out and add to it a note of the education authority's view of the issue.
I shall tell the House how many bureaucratic burdens have been imposed since the beginning of January. Forty-nine documents have been sent to primary schools. They include one on consultation, one on data collection, 13 on guidance and 34 for information only. The latter consist of two pages or less and simply provide information back-up on relevant matters. Secondary schools have been sent only 46 documents: one on consultation, two on data collection, 12 on guidance, 31 for information, again on topics of immediate interest. I agree that even 46 is too many, and we shall do better. However, deciding which document we do not send out is always a moot point.
Fifteen documents for action and guidance have been about teaching able children. Should we have sent them out? Further guidance has consisted of an update on literacy and numeracy. I have never managed to persuade the hon. Member for Maidenhead to say whether she supports the literacy and numeracy programme, which she constantly describes as a bureaucratic burden. Tonight, she described it as interfering with teachers' teaching. Teachers are teaching, and teaching better. They are doing well for their students. Teachers and pupils say that the literacy and numeracy programmes are working and that they enjoy them.
Voluntary schemes for key stage 1 save teachers having to duplicate work by re-inventing the wheel and they can also be drawn down from the Department's Standards website—something that never existed under the previous Government. Should we have not sent out guidance on employing disabled teachers and on performance management? The guidance is about helping people to do their job. There is more to do, but we are doing a great deal to ensure that what arrives—fewer than two and a half documents a week over 20 weeks—enables people to read and to learn if they want to. They can be in the same world as the rest of us in terms of paperwork, deciding priorities and doing the job.
What have we done? We have done terrible things to the teaching profession such as paying teachers more; providing better support; introducing the General Teaching Council; providing better pay for good teachers and the training salary of £6,000; improving head teacher training; providing administrative support for small schools, which never existed previously; providing more classroom assistants—20,000 by the end of next year; achieving lower infant and junior class sizes for the first


time in 10 years; and reforming the induction and the teacher training programme, which the hon. Member for Maidenhead did not mention.
For the first time, there is a teacher training curriculum and proper induction with reduced contact time. For those watching the Parliamentary channel, contact time is time spent in contact with pupils in the classroom, which we deliberately reduced in the first year to enable the introduction of the induction programme. Funding improvements have been made for schools across the board and 17,000 benefit from the new deal for schools capital—£4.5 billion of extra money is going in this year. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is having a good laugh, but the head teachers and teachers who will receive the extra money from the Budget are the ones who are really having a good laugh. They know that secondary schools will receive between £30,000 and £50,000 and that primaries will receive up to £9,000, which they certainly would not have got were the Opposition in government. That £4.5 billion is an 8 per cent. real-terms increase, which represents the real-terms spending power for schools during the whole of the previous Parliament.
We have modernised the teaching profession and we make no apology for driving up standards. We make no apology for demanding the best from teachers or for paying the best well to do the job. We make no apology for driving hard to achieve the best way in which to teach in the classroom, but we deny entirely that we have failed to allow teachers to teach or to enable them to do so in decent conditions with decent pay and prospects. Teachers will teach, and teach well. They will ensure that all children—not only some—have the opportunity to learn and the life chances that they deserve.

Mr. Phil Willis: I have agreed to speak with my usual brevity in the hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) may catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and make her maiden speech.
On behalf of Liberal Democrat Members, I welcome the opportunity to debate the future of the teaching profession. Sadly, I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) said. I am sad because I, too, remember the 18 years under the previous Administration, when I was a head teacher. The Conservative party invented bureaucracy in our schools, but she has repented of the evil doings of former Secretaries of State—I remember Mr. Patten very well—and for every sinner who repents we rejoice.
Teachers have to meet the challenge of change—no Member of the House would disagree with that—and we support the efforts of the Government, the teacher unions and the profession to do so. Sir Claus Moser recently commented that
uniquely, education alone is both the cause and the consequence of national prosperity …
Few would disagree, and, if that is so, surely we must also recognise that the teaching profession is fundamental to realising that vision. As Lord Puttnam, the new chairman of the General Teaching Council, so aptly said:
Teachers are the agents for change in society—they have the ability not just to alter this country for the better, but to actually secure its future. No other sector of the population can do that …

At last year's National Association of Head Teachers conference, those comments were echoed by the Prime Minister. He said:
I know that the success of what we are trying to do will succeed or fail on the efforts of individual teachers in every classroom in the country …
That is strong stuff.
Whatever criticisms the Secretary of State may make of me or of my party's policies, I hope that he will not criticise my commitment to the teaching profession or my admiration for much of the work that goes on in so many schools throughout the country. However, where is the evidence that the Prime Minister's proud words and aspirations are being put into action? Whether the Secretary of State likes it or not, the profession feels betrayed by a Government who promised to rescue it from the draconian clutches of the previous Administration, but who have succeeded only in further emasculation. They ooze good intention, but simply will not listen to the profession. Teachers are regarded as part of the problem rather than most of the solution, and the same applies to others in respect of many of their public service policies.
A three-year delay in tackling the challenges that the Government faced on taking office, and there were many, will cost the nation dear. Since 1997, my party has warned the Department for Education and Employment that there would be a crisis in our classrooms unless recruitment and retention became a top priority. That crisis has become a reality. There is a record number of vacancies for our schools this September, and last week, for the first time in its history, The Times Educational Supplement ran to 500 pages, 440 of which were filled with job vacancies.

Mr. Blunkett: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the vacancies represent 0.8 per cent. of the total number of teaching posts?

Mr. Willis: Whether the vacancies represent 0.8, 1 or 1.5 per cent. of the number of posts, a significant number of schools are desperately trying to recruit teachers for next September. Most of those 440 pages advertised vacancies for maths, science and modern language secondary school teachers. Maths vacancies counted for 20 per cent. of all advertised vacancies.

Mrs. May: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the official vacancy figures to which the Secretary of State referred underestimate the situation in our schools? They show about 2,600 vacancies, but the figure of 16,600 for supply teachers represents a more accurate picture.

Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for those comments. The Secretary of State referred to the January 1999 figures, which are the latest available. According to the House of Commons Library, the number of secondary school vacancies has increased by 25 per cent. since 1997. Between 1988 and 1997—the so-called bad years of the Tory Administration—there was a 60 per cent. fall. However, perhaps more disturbingly, the number of unqualified teachers working in our schools has risen by a staggering 19 per cent. That alludes to the hon. Lady's point. Most of the vacancies are in London, because many


London schools, especially schools in inner-London boroughs, cannot recruit anyone to put before children. That really is an indictment.

Mr. Blunkett: I am keen that no one out there should be misled. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give us his definition of "unqualified teachers".

Mr. Willis: I am happy to give the Secretary of State that definition. An unqualified teacher is a teacher who does not have qualified-teacher status—and I regard a teacher with qualified-teacher status as a qualified teacher. If the Secretary of State is saying that the Government intend to deal with the teacher crisis by allowing anyone to teach our children—actually to appear before a class of youngsters—he ought to confirm that now.

Mr. Blunkett: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to speak.
I am prepared to accept equivalent qualified-teacher status from countries that we recognise, with the same quality of training, in order to provide the access that we expect from them for those who receive qualified-teacher status here. What has just been said is an insult to New Zealand and Australian teachers who come to our country and do a good job.

Mr. Willis: I do not recall mentioning New Zealand and Australian teachers, and I think Hansard will record that I did not. I did, however, mention a definition of unqualified teachers. I have given the Secretary of State a clear definition of what I would term an unqualified teacher. It is rather sad that he now says that if we are to staff London schools—40 per cent. of teacher vacancies throughout the country are in London primary schools, and 30 per cent. are in London secondary schools—we should bring teachers in from the Commonwealth. If that is the Government's policy, my goodness, we have reached a sorry state of affairs.
A recent ICM poll declared that a third of teachers under 35 wanted to leave the profession within 10 years, and 50 per cent. within 15 years. We need not look far for the reasons. Teaching is fast becoming a "technician" activity under the present Government: teachers are told what to teach, when to teach, how to teach, how to assess and how to record, and somehow that is regarded as being part of the profession. Teachers are bombarded by bureaucracy and form-filling to an extent that beggars belief.
The Secretary of State referred to the number of documents that had been released since January. During three months of probing, his Department refused time and again to respond to my requests. By March 2000, it had sent each school 366 pieces of paperwork since May 1997: 73 consultation papers, 220 guidance documents, 58 data collection documents, and 15 separate letters from Ministers. Under the present Government, schools have received 18 documents a month, rather than the 2.5 per week that have been referred to over the past few months. If we add the 1,291 separate pieces of paperwork sent to local education authorities, many of which compound the bureaucracy that already exists in schools, we can see why teachers want to get out.
There is no end in sight, however. It seems that nowadays Ministers cannot make a comment without issuing a new target. At present, teachers are coping with the 4,585 targets set by the Government, the 129,330 targets set by LEAs and the 306,430,710 targets set for individual children—I thought the Secretary of State would like that! Teachers must report on all those targets. In the words of Lord Puttnam, teachers need to be
in charge of their lives and their jobs.
But they are not.
When the distressing figures about staff illness came out last week, showing that last year 60 per cent. of full-time teachers took some sick leave and that more than 2.5 million days were lost, what was the Government's response? It was not to look for reasons, or to offer sympathy; it was to set a target for schools to reduce the incidence of sickness, because it was affecting children's education. Well, of course it is. Stress does not just affect our children's education; it permanently disables some good teachers, drives others out of the classroom, and—although the Secretary of State rather sadly laughs at this—sends others to early graves.
There is real evidence that teachers are under huge stress. According to their review body, they are working an average of 60 hours a week. The review body's recommendation to the Government was clear:
Action should be taken to ensure that the hours worked by all teachers are kept within reasonable bounds and that they have reasonable rest periods and breaks.
The Government's better regulation taskforce, chaired by Lord Haskins—it was mentioned earlier—has criticised the bureaucratic burden placed on the teaching profession. In the 5 April edition of The Guardian, Lord Haskins said that the Department for Education and Employment was
the most Stalinist department I have ever come across.
The Secretary of State applauds that. My goodness!
In-depth surveys by the National Association of Head Teachers, the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers and the National Union of Teachers have indicated that, in terms of stress, work load and added value, the biggest problem facing schools is bureaucracy. Is this the climate in which we hope to recruit our brightest and best young graduates to the teaching profession? "Everyone remembers a good teacher", says the advertisement, but soon we will be asked, "Will anyone good want to become a teacher?"
The challenge for the Government is not how to reward 30 per cent. of teachers by demanding that they jump through yet more bureaucratic hoops, but how teachers are to be liberated in schools. No one will be attracted to, and few will stay in, a profession that does not value the professional ethics. Ministers must understand that creative teachers cannot be bred in captivity. We echo the call for our teachers to be allowed to teach and our children to be allowed to learn: then, and only then, will our teachers realise their potential, and the potential of their profession.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Because of the ten-minute rule, I must make a short speech. I shall base it not only on my role as Chairman of the Select Committee, but on the fact that that role has given me the privilege over the past few months of visiting many


schools around the country that I would not have visited otherwise, in Oxfordshire, Cambridgeshire and, last week, the Bristol area. Members of the Select Committee have been getting out and about, talking to teachers about how they view their jobs and the profession in general.
I was stunned by the two Opposition speeches that I heard. They bore no relation to what was said by the teachers whom I met, and whom the rest of the Select Committee met. I met a group of people who, on the whole, were optimistic and proud of their profession. They were professionals, they took great joy in their jobs, and they were getting on with their jobs. I had to draw out any negative views and criticisms. By and large, the people whom I met said, "We are very pleased with the extra resources that we are receiving."
Early-years teachers are profoundly grateful. They have never had anything as wonderful as the early-years partnerships and the money that allows young children to go to school, if that is appropriate, at the age of three, four or five. This is a marvellous time to be a pre-school teacher.
Unlike the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), I shall not quote anecdotal evidence. Most of it is not attributable to any particular person, so we must trust the hon. Lady: if she is indeed honourable, she will not have made it up on the train. The fact is, however, that we all have experience of visiting schools in our constituencies.

Mrs. May: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to read the NUT survey report, which includes a number of quotations, a number of which I quoted, which do not give names. I did identify them as classroom teachers of various years experience. I suggest that he listens to the speech from the Opposition Front Bench, rather than giving a speech in response to the speech that he thought would be given.

Mr. Sheerman: I reiterate that, in her speech, the hon. Lady did not attribute most of the comments to a particular person. That is easy. We can all do that, but the fact is that, as I go around the country, I do not find the picture that she or the Liberal Democrat spokesman have described.
In what profession would people not be saying, "We have a range of criticisms. We want some things to be changed. Not everything is perfect"? Let us go through them. I do not want these debates. I believe that they should not be allowed because they become the usual slanging match between Opposition and Government. The remarks that are made in these debates put more people off teaching than anything else I can think of.
Anyone who listened to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) would have had a large question mark about entering what is a very interesting profession at this very exciting time. I want to try to get a balanced view. We have a teaching profession that is excellent. I agree with every word that Lord Puttnam said—I shall not quote those well-known remarks again. The profession is at a very exciting stage.
After all, we rely on teachers to turn out our children. We give them our children and we end up with a wonderful body of kids coming out of school who are educated, trained and employable. They have good moral standards and values. I am talking about the kids of our country and the success of the teachers who teach them.
That is the truth. Not enough people in this place say that. We are always reading about the problems, about certain incidents and about the tiny minority of children who perhaps misbehave. On the whole, as we know, our teachers produce excellently educated and trained children and good citizens. That is the truth, so let us start with the basic truth.
Of course, all Governments do not get it absolutely right. The present Government have not. Some of their communication is not good enough. I personally believe that performance-related pay is good for the profession. I also believe that it has been poorly communicated. There is one thing that we do find when we go into a staff room and start a conversation over a cup of tea—teachers say that they are worried that performance-related pay will disturb the collegiate atmosphere in their school and be divisive.
There are good arguments that that need not necessarily be so; that, in fact, it will not be the case; and that it is a fine way of rewarding teachers in the way in which they should be rewarded, but I say to the Minister and to Ministers who are not present: we could do better in communicating what we are about from the beginning. I hope that Ministers will take that on board.
I do not want to go through the stress side too much, but that is an important area. Teaching is a lonely job. People teach in their classrooms on their own. There is a disturbing trend—many teachers have mentioned it. I think that it is to do not with the Government, but with the society in which we live. At the Easter conferences, we saw dramatic examples of teachers speaking at the rostrum who had been accused of abusing a child. There is one sector of the British justice system where people are guilty until they are proven innocent: where the allegation is of child abuse. I sometimes wonder whether one of the great deterrents to people going into teaching is the way in which our criminal justice system has changed for that one area.
I spent a lot of time dealing with the criminal justice system, speaking in the House on criminal justice matters. In terms of a number of professions, including social workers, probation workers, care home assistants and teachers, we are getting into a hysteria about children and child abuse and probably have the balance wrong. It cannot be right if prospective teachers who are thinking about coming into the teaching profession are deterred by the real fear that their lives and their families' lives could be destroyed. All of us have constituents to whom it has happened—constituents who have faced an allegation of abuse from one child. That can mean months, if not years, of suspension, torture and misery.

Dr. Evan Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is widespread support among Members on both sides of the House for the points that he has just made? It underlines the importance of the Government really getting right, for example, the sex and relationships education guidance, which advises teachers on what they should and should not say to children, and some of the culture, as well as the criminal justice rules about schools, to avoid those false accusations.

Mr. Sheerman: I thank my hon.—I should say the hon. Gentleman. He is a member of the Select Committee, so it is hard to remember. He made an important point.
What I am trying to draw out is that we can get into a situation where we say it is the Government's fault, it is always the Government's fault, or it was the Opposition's fault that we had 18 years of neglect. We all know that. Sometimes we should strip those arguments away and say, "Come on. There is a problem."
I intervened on the hon. Member for Maidenhead and said, "Look, it is an international problem." I was at a well-known college in Oxford last Thursday evening. I talked to the teaching staff there. They said that one of the sad things is that people do not want to go into teaching any more. They all want to go into the City and to be highly paid lawyers. Those teachers regretted that, but something in our society, which we are perhaps all responsible for, has demoted working in the public sector and in the public interest. Whether that is to do with Thatcherism or greed, or whether it is something that has happened in all countries, I would rather look at the matter with some balance and with some basis of research, rather than just blame others in the usual way, as in a Punch and Judy act, in the House.

Mr. David Drew: I worked in teacher training for many years. We always had to accept that entrance into the teaching profession was inversely related to economic prosperity. It is a simple fact that it has always been more difficult to recruit people to teaching when we have done relatively well in terms of economic development. Would my hon. Friend care to comment on that?

Mr. Sheerman: I take my hon. Friend's point. He is right. In times of economic boom, recruitment to teaching is less good because there are many other alternatives, it is a demanding, tough job and it is not the best paid job in the world, although it is reasonably paid. However, a significant number of people are moving away from valuing teaching as a profession. It is the American pattern. I regret that.
I still remember the last speech that the late John Smith made the night before he died. It was about trying to get back into our society the value of public service, the value of doing a job that is about not just making as much money as possible, but getting a reasonable income for doing a job that is rewarding. There is nothing more rewarding than teaching young people.
There is the matter of the burden on teachers. We can look at it rationally. One person's bureaucratic burden is someone's helpful channel of communication; there was a bit of that in the exchanges across the Floor earlier. If teachers are left to teach with no helpful advice, no guidance and no communication, we would be in a sorry state. They would be alienated, thinking that no one cared about them. They would say, "They never communicate. We do not know what they want us to do." Interestingly, from talking to teachers, I perceive the problem to be that there are too many lines of communication. They are all blurred.
Teachers are responsible to head teachers—who are responsible to governors, the local education authority, the Government and various other bodies. There is a fuzzing and blurring of the lines and channels of communication. We should earnestly and seriously consider that issue, because there is a problem.
Lord Haskins—undoubtedly with his characteristic good humour—offered an interesting insight when he said that the Department was the most Stalinist that he had ever come across. I do not take the comment that seriously, but this morning, when the Select Committee was interviewing Sir Michael Bichard, the Department's permanent secretary, we quoted it. Although I suspect that we must take it with a pinch of salt, there is a grain of truth in it. Communication could be better and more sensitive.

Mr. John Bercow: It is obviously a matter of balance. However, does the hon. Gentleman honestly believe that every one of the extra 3,468 new regulations introduced last year was essential? Does he not acknowledge that the sea of regulation is now deeper and more hazardous than any other with which teachers have had to contend? What proportion of those circulars or regulations does the hon. Gentleman honestly think that the average head teacher has time fully to read?

Mr. Sheerman: I am sure that, in the past 20 or 30 years, there has been a gradual increase in communications between Departments and schools and between LEAs and schools. The truth is that all Governments have tried increasingly to control education and educational output. I therefore imagine that a graph would show exponential growth in such communication. I probably also understand the reasons for that growth.
I should like to finish on a very serious point. One of the Select Committee's roles is to interview the chief inspector of schools. I regret that, very often, bashing the chief inspector is considered to be popular sport—everyone likes to do it. Although there may be reasons for doing it, I shall not do it today. On the most recent occasion when the chief inspector gave evidence to the Committee, we had a very positive exchange with him. I should perhaps add that our report was issued this morning—in case anyone wants to rush out and get a copy direct from the printers.
Who would deny, however, the problem that is expressed when one goes into schools and talks about inspection to teachers? Of course we want to know about the standards in our schools, and of course we want not only to measure, but to raise standards. I am also a believer in the old business adage, "If you can't measure it, you can't manage it." However, although I believe that that adage is very important in terms of literacy and numeracy—in which the Government have done a very good job—I think that there is still a very real problem with inspection.
Although I am hesitant to refer to the tragedy of a suicide after an inspection recently, I was speaking to a group of teachers who said that the most stressful thing that they have had in their lives—not this month or this year, but in their lives—was the inspection. They were good teachers in an excellent school and they achieved a wonderful rating. We have to do something about how the inspectorate is viewed and how it performs its task. In a good society and good educational system, there should not be such a reaction to inspection.
In inspection, there should be such good co-operation that the school knows what to expect. We do not need a witch-finder general in education, to frighten people or to cause them stress. We have to get the balance better.
If we do not do that, I believe that something that is very good will be brought into disrepute. We need an inspection system that identifies weaknesses and problems, and then makes a positive partnership to get it right for the kids who are being taught in the schools and the teachers who teach them.
In my experience, one does not get very far by frightening and demoralising people and then walking away. Yes to inspection—but let us go back to the very best of the old Her Majesty's inspectorates, which built, worked at and improved a positive relationship. If one thing would help teacher morale and increase recruitment, it would be that.

Sandra Gidley: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this debate, because education was one of our key campaigning themes in the by-election.
First, however, as is customary on these occasions, I pay tribute to my predecessor, the late Michael Colvin. It is impossible for me to pay tribute to Michael without also paying tribute to his wife, Nichola. They were very much two for the price of one, and a frequent and prominent sight in the constituency. I knew Michael for a number of years, and he was always very charming. My overwhelming memories, however, are of Nichola's warmth and generosity of spirit, and of Michael's charm and unerring knack of calming any troubled situation so that everyone came out of it feeling happy. I first heard the tragic news on my return from holiday in early March, and I still find it difficult to believe that they are no longer with us. On a personal level, they are missed by many people in the constituency.
Many hon. Members attended the moving memorial service in Romsey abbey, and then had a small taste of what Romsey has to offer. Romsey is regarded by many people as a rural constituency. Although I grant that the constituency includes a large, attractive rural area which includes the River Test and an expanse of rolling Hampshire countryside, to me, constituencies are more about the people who live in them. In Romsey, 80 per cent. of constituents live in urban and suburban areas.
The nature of the constituency is probably best reflected by looking at its senior schools. Test Valley school, which is in Stockbridge and serves the north of the constituency, has an excellent educational record that belies the fact that the headmistress often has to deal with real problems of rural deprivation.
Moving closer to Romsey, there is Embley Park school, which is in the private sector. It is particularly interesting because it was once the home of Florence Nightingale.
We also have Stanbridge Earls school, which is also in the private sector. It is, however, a different type of private school, with a strong record of helping children with dyslexia. Its examination results may not look good on paper, but they hide the fact that much good work is being done for pupils who have certain types of learning difficulty. We must not always look superficially at statistics.
In Romsey itself, we have the Mountbatten school—which has educated my two children very well—and the excellent Romsey school. Both schools have strong academic records. Of particular note, however, is the

unique co-operation between the two schools. By working together, they have achieved joint specialist language status—a joint project partnership, involving the community, which will widen language learning opportunities in both the school and the community.
Moving to the Chandlers Ford area, Thornden school has an outstanding academic record, with 74 per cent. of children obtaining five or more A to C passes at GCSE. The school has also received specialist status for its music provision. Toynbee school also has a good record and a good recognition of its sports provision.
Moving towards the Southampton part of the constituency, the picture changes a little. The Atherley is a private school with an excellent reputation, but St. George's Catholic boys school presents a rather more interesting picture. The verdict of its last Ofsted inspection was that there were "serious weaknesses". Despite that, the school achieved a very creditable five or more GCSE pass rate of 59 per cent. The school has been through a difficult period, with four heads in three years. Unfortunately for the school, it is being Ofsteded this week. I hope for the sake of everybody there that it is going well.
Last, but by no means least, is Cantell school. Its GCSE pass rate of 39 per cent. does not sound quite so good, but its catchment area includes some of the most deprived parts of Southampton. We are all too quick to judge a school by a superficial glance at the figures, but that does not reveal that the school has a strong community base and copes well with the broad ethnic mix of its pupils.
Those are my local schools. Most are doing well at the moment, but we need to ensure that they continue to do well and that our education service continues to attract and retain teachers of the highest quality. I have come across many teachers in the past few weeks. I came across one lady who conforms to many of the averages. She had just left the teaching profession to start her own business, after teaching for just four years—the average life of a teacher entering the profession today. Her reasons for leaving were stress and bureaucratic overload.
I was told today that 40 per cent. of our teachers are over 50. A teaching crisis looms, even though officially there is not one at the moment. Is there any good reason any more for anyone to want to become a teacher? We have more graduates than ever, but fewer of them want to become teachers. Salaries are part of the problem, particularly in trying to attract teachers with science, maths or modern language skills, especially in the prosperous south. However, that is only part of the problem. No one is trying to address the other problems of the demanding pupil population and the stress of having to deal with badly behaved, disaffected children. We have high expectations of our teachers. The public and politicians are slow to praise and quick to criticise. That is why I wanted to celebrate our local successes today.
Then there is bureaucratic overload and central control, leading to a relentless pattern of long days, working over weekends and perpetual tiredness. One teacher told me that she works a 60-hour week and cannot physically or mentally work any harder, but she is now supposed to try to find the time to gather evidence towards performance-related pay. She simply cannot do it. She is one of many. All the evidence shows that performance-related pay is unsettling and highly divisive. It undermines staff morale and discourages team working.
The concern is that more pay will be given to teachers in high-performing schools, leaving schools in deprived areas at the end of the queue for good teachers.
A profession is attractive only if its members feel that they have some professional freedom and are rewarded with respect and suitable pay. Professionalism for teachers has been diminished. As they are ever more straitjacketed, they are rapidly losing motivation, because they are increasingly being forced to teach to a formula.
I have already noticed that there is a lot of inspiration and individuality in the way in which many Members of Parliament conduct themselves. Why do we not allow our teachers to show a little of the same?

Mr. Derek Twigg: I congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) on her thoughtful maiden speech. I did not agree with every word of it, but I know how nerve-racking a maiden speech can be, having made mine just a few years ago. I also express my sympathy to the family and friends of Michael Colvin on their tragic loss.
I shall consider the issue from a different perspective from the Opposition. I pay tribute to the excellent work of the vast majority of teachers in my constituency and around the country. They do a great job under great pressure. The job has not got any easier. Given some of the pressures in society, it has become much more demanding. Teachers often have to be social workers as well. The Government have recognised that it can be very difficult.
It would be remiss not to accept that there is a recruitment problem and we have not yet been able to do away with the morale problems, but that situation has not come about overnight. The problems have been entrenched for a while and dealing with them properly will take some time, but the Government have made a good start.
Our education reforms have placed the emphasis on good teaching, improvement, getting better performance out of teachers and paying good teachers for good performance. In areas such as mine, before 1997, up to 50 per cent. of 11-year-olds were not reaching the required standards in maths and English. That was unacceptable. I understand the argument that we should just let teachers teach and get on with it, but we sometimes lose sight of the fact that in some areas, the standard of education that a child received was often determined by the lottery of which school they went to. Similarly, the choice of teacher within a school could sometimes be a lottery. No child deserves that. It is unacceptable for which school or teacher a child gets to be a matter of luck, which clearly was the case in some areas, not least in parts of my constituency. That is something that the Government have tried to do something about.
I have young children and I have stood at school gates and heard parents say, "I hope my child gets Mrs. So-and-so next year, not Mr. So-and-so." That should not happen. We will always have exceptional teachers, and we have many of them, but it is not acceptable that parents have to hope that their child does not get a certain teacher.
Teaching is a demanding, frustrating and stressful job at times, but many jobs are like that. Of course, teachers have an especial responsibility for our young people.

Teachers have an influence on children's futures, both at school and in their careers and contributions to society. Probably no other profession has such a profound effect and the Government recognise that. That is why we cannot just let poor teachers carry on as they always have before.
We have seen continually rising standards since Labour came to power. Like most Members of Parliament, I have visited the schools in my constituency and seen the effect that the money from the Government has had. We want to see better pay for teachers, and the new system will achieve that. Substantial amounts of money are available, and the recruitment package that the Government have put together, better teacher training and the General Teaching Council are all attempts to try to improve the situation.
I do not claim that everything in the garden is rosy. Problems still exist, and it will take time for some of the initiatives to take effect. Certain schools still have recruitment problems, and it is often—but not always—the case that those schools have some of the most difficult problems and worst results. That is no coincidence and it also sends a clear message.
I know that some teachers worry about initiative overloads. I talked to a head teacher in my constituency and she said that she had a lot of work to do and was unable to do some of the things that she would like to do. I asked her about the literacy and numeracy hours, because they have been cited as part of the overload, but she said that the hours were having an effect and focusing classroom teaching on raising standards. A teacher told me last year that instead of trying to improve literacy individually and being interrupted by other children, she was able to help the whole class during the special hours.
The Government have said that they wish to reduce bureaucracy. However, the suggestion that bureaucracy is a new problem under Labour is garbage. The Tories were famous for their initiatives. One of the teachers' union conferences illustrated that with stacks and stacks of paper. Teachers are always willing to talk about the burdens of the national curriculum, and we have tried to make some changes to it. The fact remains that the biggest burden was placed on teachers by the Tories, and I am still waiting for them to apologise.
The literacy and numeracy hours are working. They are improving standards and giving more of our children a better chance. We have nothing to apologise for in that. Standards are rising, and that is what is important. Under the Tories, some 50 per cent. of children in my constituency were having great difficulty in reaching the standard. I have not forgotten that, and no one should.
The Tories have said that people do not talk about what the Tories did, but people do because there is a clear contrast between what the Tories did and what we are doing. Education has been made a priority under Labour and we are making a difference for all our people, not just a few. After all, the Tories' proposal to improve standards is to have a grammar school in every town and I remember a Tory Front Bencher asking at Question Time recently why private schools could not have the extra money for information technology.
Some schools have very outdated IT equipment and Labour is making a difference in that area. Schools are getting new equipment and having lines installed, and that will make a difference to children's IT skills. Our vision, together with improved teacher training in IT, is making a difference.
What is the Government's general education policy and how is it affecting teacher morale? I accept that there are pay issues and that teachers want to feel that they are valued. Indeed, I think that they are valued. Issues arise also about the environment in which they work and the resources that are made available to them. My constituency includes the towns of Widnes and Runcorn, and it provides an example of what the Government have been doing and how that will help the future of the teaching profession. There has been a 6 per cent. improvement in reading and writing standards over the past year, and a 10 per cent. increase in maths. Those are phenomenal and regular increases of which parents in Halton are aware.
The overall increase in expenditure is much better than it was under the Tory Government. Ditton primary school in Widnes in my constituency waited 11 years for a completely new school building. In terms of teacher morale and support for teachers, the buildings are appalling. They are not fit for children. There is a split site and insufficient space, resulting in cramped conditions. What happened? The Labour Government provided the full sum that was needed to replace the school, not merely support for rebuilding costs. If a one-off example of improving the teaching environment is required, it is provided by Ditton primary school. There are also five new classrooms that have been provided in Halton.
I talk to teachers who work in cramped classrooms with poor facilities. In many instances, office facilities are poor. However, there have been many improvements to schools that have struggled in some of the most deprived areas. The improvements have been badly needed and they have been made under a Labour Government.
The new deal for schools was introduced recently. Eight or nine schemes have been approved in my constituency at a cost of about £1.8 million. Perhaps the teaching environment has been forgotten during the debate, but there are new science buildings for some schools along with better office facilities. One school has not had a playing field for 100 years. At long last it is getting one—and who from? It is being provided under the Labour Government. That will make a real difference.
We have recently qualified for excellence in cities. Thousands of pounds have been made available this year and last year for new books in schools. Many secondary schools will receive an additional £50,000, while primary schools will receive an extra £9,000. I spoke to a head teacher, who said that she wants the money now. She cannot wait for it because there are so many things that she can do with it. The quicker that she receives the money, the better. These extra resources would never have been provided under the Tory Government.
It seems that the class-size initiative for five, six and seven-year-olds has been forgotten. We want to improve class sizes overall, and we have made a start. We have seen the difference in infant classes. Teachers are saying that it is good news for them. In Halton this year, there will be no classes of more than 30 children for five, six and seven-year-olds. That is a tremendous achievement under the Labour Government. Again, it will help to boost teacher morale.
There are various issues that surround exclusion, especially for certain schools. I am sure that the Government have listened to comments. There is talk

about providing facilities for pupils who have been excluded. There can be difficulties that lead to a decline in morale. I understand and accept that some schools were excluding pupils too easily while others took a much better approach. In those schools, exclusion was a rarity. They did all that they could to support pupils who might have been subject to exclusion. The issue has been raised by a head teacher in my constituency.
We must give the reforms a proper chance. Teachers are delivering in a way that we have not seen for some time. They are doing so in a broad sense throughout schools and classrooms. A pupil's teacher or the school which he or she attends is becoming much less of a lottery, and that is a clear message. The Government have no apology to make to parents for raising standards. Indeed, the raising of them is something of which we can be proud, and something which parents want to see. We shall be judged on the issue when we come to the next general election, and that will be in our favour.
There is a need for support and partnership, but Governments have a responsibility to raise standards and improve education. We should never forget that teachers are a pivotal part of that process. It is incumbent upon us to form a partnership with teachers.
Finally, education is crucial in areas such as mine. For many years, some schools, teachers and pupils have under-performed. I said earlier that some 50 per cent. of pupils did not reach the appropriate standard at age 11, but that figure is improving. I make no apology for the fact that I come from a working-class, council-estate background, but I do not think that coming from a difficult or deprived background is an excuse for lower results.
The hon. Member for Romsey mentioned a school in her constituency that is in a deprived area. However, there is no excuse for such schools producing poor results. A lot of good-quality teaching goes on in such schools, and good results are being obtained. Social factors must be taken into account, but they should never be an excuse for poor performance.
All schools should attain average or above-average results. Schools in parts of my constituency are achieving better results: where they were attaining percentage scores in the late teens and low 20s, they are now achieving scores of between 42 and 44 per cent. One particular school has doubled its achievement levels in three or four years. Part of the community served by that school is among the most socially and economically deprived in the area, but that merely shows that the argument that such schools cannot improve is wrong.
Teachers have a pivotal role in such improvement. Most of them do a great and valuable job, but we cannot accept that any teacher should be able to get away with not delivering for our children. We must press ahead with the reforms, although I agree that we need to do more for teacher morale. We can do so, and I am sure that our policies will prove to be right.

Mr. Bowen Wells: I hope that the House will find that the two things that I want to say are pleasant and complimentary. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) on her outstanding maiden speech, in which she outlined those parts of her constituency that are especially interesting from the point of view of education.
I also thank the hon. Lady for the very gracious, warm and lovely compliments that she paid to our late friend Mr. Colvin, and to his wife, Nichola. We treasure our memories of both of them and much regret their departure. I am sure that the House looks forward to hearing from the hon. Lady often in the future, and to benefiting from her presence.
Secondly, like the hon. Members for Halton (Mr. Twigg) and for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), I take great pleasure in paying a compliment to the teachers in my constituency. Over the past 20 years, under Conservative as well as Labour Governments, education has improved in this country. I am not interested in a party political scrap on the matter, but the teachers who have achieved that improvement deserve to be complimented.
Many teachers in my constituency are married women, and the job of teaching fits well with their duties in the household and as mothers. We are very fortunate to have many highly qualified teachers who have helped schools to improve their standards. Many hon. Members have described how hard teachers work, day in and day out. I was a teacher and I remember very well how drained and exhausted one felt, having given all one's mental capacity to the job.
We must pay enormous compliments to teachers, as their achievements are not confined to pushing up academic standards. Their work is evident in music and on school playing fields, for example, and in the many extracurricular activities from which pupils benefit hugely. All the schools in my constituency have improved over the past 20 years. Some difficulties remain, but I do not want my compliments to the teachers to be overshadowed by the problems that we still face.
However, one such problem is that many women will not enter the teaching profession in the future. The statistics show that in the next 10 to 15 years the teaching profession faces a huge exodus of experienced teachers whose children have grown up and who wish to retire. The problem, which is becoming a crisis, is how to recruit sufficient teachers to replace those who leave the profession. We need more men, as well as women. There are many more opportunities available to women than there were 20, 30 or 40 years ago. I rejoice in the fact that they are entering all kinds of professions and activities, but that means that they will not be available to teach in our schools. That will create a recruitment and retention crisis.
The hon. Member for Romsey talked about a lady who had taught for four years—the average length of time that someone teaches—and was going to start up her own business. That is typical of what happens and, while it is to be welcomed, it creates a problem that we must all face.
We must work hardest to tackle this problem in the inner-city areas. The inner cities are letting our children down because there is no stability in the teaching force. Schools in inner cities have the greatest concentration of supply teachers and unqualified teachers. This January, almost one teacher in 20 was a temporary supply teacher or an instructor. Before he gets over-excited, the Secretary of State should know that an instructor is an unqualified teacher. The number is going up—for the second year running there are 3,000 instructors. According to John Howson, visiting professor at Oxford Brookes university,

instructors are supposed to be used by schools only as a last resort, as they usually lack formal training and teaching skills.
Unqualified and supply teachers provide the major teaching force in our inner-city schools. Who makes up inner-city populations? Very often, they are dominated by minorities—black, Asian and immigrant populations. We should be ashamed of having unqualified and supply teachers in schools that do not enable children to grow up with a capacity to compete with their peers. I have had to advise some parents to send their children back to the West Indies, where they will find a higher standard of teaching, a higher standard of school and a more stable teaching force compared with what is available in schools in London and other cities.
We should be concerned about that. We must find a way of attracting teachers into schools and then retaining them. In my view, we must pay them more, even if that means creating jealousy among teachers in my constituency who do not earn as much. Indeed, the Government have done this—they are attracting more teachers to the subjects in which there are is an insufficient teaching force, particularly maths and science.
There should be a differential in the pay scales. I welcome performance-related pay, but I do not think that the Government have got it right. I was talking to a friend who is a teacher and is, of course, tempted to apply for the £2,000 performance-related pay rise on offer from the Government. It is no good the Secretary of State saying that it is quite easy to do that and that the Government are not over-burdening teachers with bureaucracy. Let me tell the House what teachers have to do, on top of their teaching load, and on top of helping pupils revise for their A-levels. They have to submit evidence, giving concrete examples from the past few years, that they
Have a thorough and up-to-date knowledge of their subjects.
Consistently and effectively plan lessons to meet individual pupils' needs, use a range of appropriate strategies for teaching and classroom management, and use information about prior attainment to set their pupils appropriate targets.
Take responsibility for their professional development and make an active contribution to the school's policies and aspirations.
Challenge and support all pupils to do their best by inspiring trust and confidence, building team commitment, engaging and motivating pupils, thinking analytically and taking positive action to improve the quality of pupils' learning.
They have to fill in a six-page application form proving that their pupils make good progress as a result of their teaching.
That is a burden on each teacher wishing to benefit from performance-related pay. It is over-burdensome and over-bureaucratic, and will not achieve the objectives. Teachers to whom I have spoken say that they do not have the time, that they are too exhausted and simply will not apply.
The Government must look at the matter and get it right. It is not right now, and I should like an undertaking from the Minister replying to the debate that the Government will look at the system, streamline it and make it easier, so that many more teachers can benefit from what has been put forward as an incentive for them to teach well. I do not think that it will work under the present system.
Much has been said about the extra money coming into schools. In fact, in my constituency less money is coming into schools. Many of them have been grant-maintained


and have been cut back year after year after year. They are now having to cut back on the teaching force, and pupil numbers in my secondary schools are going up. There may be an increase overall. I am not a Minister and do not know the centralised facts and figures that they keep repeating on the radio to anybody who listens. In schools in my constituency pupil numbers per class are going up and the amount of money coming into the schools is going down.
Even with the recent announcements of additional money, that money will not come to my schools. Therefore, there is a high degree of stress in the schools in my constituency. It is no good crowing that "education, education, education" is being given to all people in this country—the money is simply not coming into many schools.

Mr. Graham Brady: Would my hon. Friend also note that the cut in budgets for grant-maintained schools came in spite of a clear pledge from the Secretary of State that budgets for non-grant-maintained schools would be increased to the level of grant-maintained schools? What the Government have done is precisely the opposite: they have cut the budget for schools that were grant-maintained.

Mr. Wells: The Government have indeed cut the amount of money going to grant-maintained schools, which are now called foundation schools. The result is that we are getting higher numbers in each class and the teachers find it much more difficult to achieve the standards that they want to achieve on behalf of their pupils. Far from there being less stress, there is far more in those circumstances. The Ministers in charge should take note of that. I hope that they will listen to what I have said and to what my hon. Friend has said and do something about it, because the situation cannot go on for long without something breaking.
Another matter that is very serious and needs attention is the secondary school transfer system, which the Government are severely changing, resulting in very serious stress for many parents and many pupils in my constituency. The Government have to find a way to make the secondary school transfer much less stressful both to pupils and parents. They should drop the ideological idea that they must create community schools, and should advance more along the line of finding schools for pupils—that is, have a variety of schools with different specialities to which people can go, wherever they come from, whether in my case from Essex, from Bishop's Stortford or from the villages.
Whether pupils want a technical education, an academic education or a musical education, or whether they want a school concentrating on sports, that choice should be available to them. They should not be forced into the nearest school, but nor should they have to travel across the town—as they are being forced to do in Bishop's Stortford—because there is no place for them at a nearby secondary school that they want to attend. The secondary school transfer system is not working; it needs to be rethought and thoroughly overhauled.
The real way to push up standards will be by concentrating on the courses for teachers at training colleges. The colleges must increase and improve the standards required for those entering the teaching

profession. At present, primary teachers are not required to achieve sufficient A-level and GCSE passes—indeed, they do not always need A-levels to get into teacher training.
We need more highly qualified teachers. The foundations for numeracy and literacy are set in primary schools. The colleges need to raise standards for primary teachers, although that is not to say that we should neglect standards for secondary schools, but children spend those foundation years 1 to 5 in primary schools. We should then tell teachers to teach to the standards that they learned in college and that they will be inspected to ensure that they are doing so. We should reward those teachers adequately and differentially, so as to attract more people into the profession.
Teaching is a vocation. People do not go into teaching just for the money, but for the huge satisfaction of helping children—perhaps those who perform least well. They can help such children pull themselves up and become stars in their own right. We should be attracting people into the profession so that they can experience the joy of helping others to learn.

Mr. Colin Burgon: I congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) on her highly effective maiden speech. I look forward to hearing from her again—after the next general election as well.
Most of the speeches so far have been decidedly non-partisan. I hope that we can carry on in that vein. I bring to the debate my experience of some 16 years as a teacher. Most of that time was spent in the classroom, in a fairly tough school in east Leeds—I still bear the scars of one or two clashes with my pupils. Some of my friends and relations are also in teaching. As a Member of Parliament, I keep in touch with schools in my constituency and with teachers who live there.
Present-day teaching is a hard job; it gets harder as each year goes by. Anyone who thinks that Mr. Chips, Billy Bunter or Greyfriars are still around in our education system must be from another planet. To be blunt, teaching in many of our schools is a hard grind. It is not glamorous and is carried on in difficult circumstances.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) pointed out, teaching can be a lonely job. When that classroom door closes, the teacher is, in effect, alone. When the door used to close behind me, I often thought of the American humorist who said:
For every person wishing to teach, there are 30 not wanting to be taught.
I can assure hon. Members that I battled against that apathy.
The strain of teaching in difficult conditions should not be underestimated, especially when teachers face daily challenges to their authority, personality and ideas of self-worth. In a world that is increasingly assertive, litigious and consumer driven, the job of teaching is becoming harder and harder. I contend that the classroom teacher is the most vital element in the whole educational process. Our support—in all its forms—for that teacher should be of prime concern.
In that respect, I am delighted to highlight three facts from the Labour Government's record. First, under the Conservatives spending fell by £60 per pupil in their last


three Budgets. Since we were elected, spending has risen by £300 per pupil in real terms. Secondly, education spending is forecast to increase by more than 16 per cent. in real terms in this Parliament compared with an 8 per cent. rise in the previous Parliament. Thirdly, we have invested to improve and modernise schools, with more than 11,000 of them already allocated funding through the new deal for schools. Several hon. Members have alluded to the improvements that have taken place in their constituencies and I echo their comments.
Specifically in relation to teachers, I wish to highlight about half a dozen moves that the Government have taken. In addition to the annual pay increase that all teachers receive, from September the majority should be eligible for a further £2,000 with the new performance threshold payments. What especially pleases me is that, for the first time, teachers have the prospect of significant pay progression within, and recognition of, the core job of classroom teaching.
In my days in classroom teaching, I often thought that two brands of teachers fled the classroom. The first were those who were very effective and wanted to progress in their careers. The only way that they could do that was to go more into administration in a school. Secondly and quite bluntly, the second group was made up of those who were incompetent in the classroom. They were kicked into higher-paid administration jobs, which did nothing for the morale of teachers in the classroom. I have always and consistently taken the view that the most undervalued section of the teaching force is the classroom teacher.
To support classroom teachers, I am pleased to read that, by April 2002, about 20,000 non-teaching assistants or learning support assistants will be in place. Initially, teachers reacted in a guarded way to the implementation of the programme, but they now welcome the assistants because they recognise that they give valuable assistance to, for example, pupils with statements. That particular Government initiative is to be praised.
I am glad that the Government have recognised that the burden of administration can be especially disproportionate in small schools, many of which are in my constituency.

Caroline Flint: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's initiative, which values and expands the role of the classroom assistant, lays the bedrock for classroom assistants possibly becoming the fully qualified teachers that we hope to have in a few years time?

Mr. Burgon: As always, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point and, as always, I agree with her.
I move quickly on to flag up the fact that £80 million of funding for small schools will allow them to employ extra administrative staff. The Government have consulted on, and agreed, an information management strategy for schools and local education authorities. It aims to help raise standards by cutting unnecessary data collection and promoting more effective use of information. About £700 million is being invested in the national grid for learning programme for schools up to 2002 and one of its key targets is that, by 2002, communications, including data collection, should cease to be largely paper based.
The final initiative that I particularly welcome is the excellence in cities initiative, which will bring nearly £20 million into my home city of Leeds. I have had a long chat with teachers in Leeds about that and they are especially pleased with the introduction of learning mentors. These non-teaching but skilled people identify under-achieving children and plan an effective programme to help them. Learning mentors can be employed for holiday periods or after school hours and that very flexibility adds to their effectiveness in helping teachers.
Excellence in cities also aims to identify the top 5 or 10 per cent. of gifted and talented pupils in what would not be classed as our most salubrious schools so that they can be given extra support. That allows teachers to put plans in place beyond the normal curriculum to expand the learning capacity and experience of, say, a pupil who is a gifted musician, a gifted rugby player or a gifted badminton player. Thankfully, Leeds does not need too many gifted footballers, because the place is already crammed with them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I thank Members for that support.
So much of what the Government are doing is praiseworthy and has been welcomed by teachers. However, if we are honest and listen to teachers, we have to be aware that they face problems that we should do our best to address. Most teachers to whom I speak actively support the individual initiatives undertaken by this Labour Government.
Literacy and numeracy hours, updating teachers in the use of information and communications technology and excellence in the cities are all welcomed by teachers. However, we must be honest and accept that they regard the number and frequency of the initiatives as a problem. The Government take the view that children get only one chance, and they make no apology for hurrying to raise standards. As a parent with a nine-year-old daughter in school, I have no problem with that.
One might argue that, in effect, the Government are pushing through a cultural revolution in education, which will ultimately benefit hundreds of thousands of children. As with all revolutions—which we have read about in books, even if we have not experienced one ourselves—we must carry the key groups with us as we strive to achieve our aims. Supporters of change must be largely self-motivated and enthused. In my opinion, the classroom teacher is the key agency in delivering the improvements that we want.
Of course, as with any revolution, people need a period of stability, or at least the prospect of stability. The Government have done a great deal, and I urge them to listen carefully to what teachers are saying about the number and frequency of initiatives and the need for a bedding-in process. I shall give some practical examples, based on my experience and contact with teachers, on which we could perhaps move forward together.
Could we not examine the period needed to review an application for threshold pay? Recently, a head teacher told me that it is estimated that it will take three hours or so to assess each individual case going through the process. For example, if 30 members of staff have applied for one of those payments, that will work out as 90 hours of extra work for the school head. Even I, who have not been through the numeracy hour, can work that out. Will Ministers examine how head teachers are meant to find that time?
The document "Teachers: Meeting the Challenge of Change" examines the idea of sabbaticals. The scheme is already in use in countries such as Austria and Israel. To avoid what is known as burn-out in teaching, we should introduce sabbaticals as soon as possible. I certainly wish that I could have had one. After, perhaps, 10 years' service, a teacher should be able to have a term or six months off to pursue work or outside interests. There may well be losses to the profession, but that may be a good thing if people are unhappy or unsettled. We would find that the vast majority of teachers would return to teaching committed, refreshed and reinvigorated.
The issue of summer holidays is also connected to burn-out. Some may think that hon. Members are vulnerable in discussing that but, of course, we all work tremendously hard during that period. I know how and why I looked forward to the summer break as a teacher. Those who have not been in teaching cannot understand the treadmill nature of the job. Day after day, the curriculum and timetable bear down on teachers, so they desperately need that break. I agree with the National Union of Teachers which, in its evidence to the commission on the organisation of the school year, said that
the summer break is essential to allow teachers and pupils to recuperate from the stress and workload of the school year and to gear up for the next.
I therefore urge the Government not to press ahead with ideas about shortening the summer holidays without the clear support of all teachers.
Discipline is another vital issue on which the Government need to support classroom teachers. The idea that most teachers are unreconstructed versions of Wackford Squeers is untenable. Many teachers facing classes in difficult schools have a daily battle on their hands. If we accept that we need order in classrooms as a necessary precondition for learning, we must adopt policies to achieve that objective. The excellence in cities initiative involves an inclusion policy and funding for learning support units, which will take pupils who prove to be too difficult to be taught in the normal classroom situation. The Government must monitor closely the effectiveness of those units and ensure that we listen to teachers involved in them.
In addition, the language that we use about teachers is sometimes a bit inconsiderate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said, Ofsted is trying to be increasingly school and teacher friendly. I welcome that much more open approach. It may well be that the teaching unions could club together and send Mr. Woodhead on a crash course in diplomacy. That might be welcomed by a majority of teachers.
I know that Ministers will listen to the points that I have raised, for they, like me and the teaching profession, are overwhelmingly united in a desire to improve standards in education and with that the life chances of our people. Teachers cannot stand alone. They cannot be expected to address every conceivable problem that finds its way into the classroom, but if they know that they have a Government who listen, care and are committed to shared goals, we will be able to achieve a tremendous amount in this most vital of all human activities—education.

Mr. Tim Collins: Given the lateness of the hour and the shortness of time, I shall be brief.
I pay tribute to the first-class maiden speech of the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley). She did extraordinarily well. I know that those of us on the Conservative Benches particularly welcomed her comments on her predecessor; both Michael and Nichola Colvin will be much missed. However, it is clear that the hon. Lady will make some interesting contributions to our debates, which I look forward to hearing. I hope that she enjoys her time in the House.
I agreed with some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), the Chairman of the Education Sub-Committee, who is not now present, particularly the point that he—and the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon)—made about the need for backing up teachers who are trying to enforce discipline. The hon. Member for Huddersfield said that we should consider how we might move away from circumstances in which teachers believe that they can be treated as guilty until proven innocent, simply on the word of one child who might have a reason for making up a rather unpleasant story about them.
I pay particular tribute to the teachers in my constituency. In the past couple of weeks or so, I have visited Crosscrake primary school near Kendal and Settlebeck secondary school in Sedbergh, where there is excellent and inspirational teaching. I should, on behalf of the teachers in my constituency, confirm the point made in the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) that, for those of us who have a majority of former grant-maintained secondary schools in our constituencies, the first years of this Government were not a cornucopia of additional funding. It was quite the contrary; they were years of cuts and, in some cases, reductions in teaching staff, which were necessitated by the Government breaking their clear election pledges and lowering funding for those schools.
For a number of parents in the Kendal area particularly, the imposition of the Government's rigid target of 30 pupils for classes of five-year olds has meant in that growing town, in which the number of applicants for schools is also growing, the separation of siblings. Those who were able in some families to get into a school a few years ago are not able to do so now. That has caused distress and also appears to have been bought at the expense of growing class sizes for those aged eight and over.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield said one other thing, which I must pick up. He implied that, in her superb speech, the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made up some quotations from teachers. It should be on record that the quotations were provided by the National Union of Teachers. If the Chairman of the Select Committee is alleging that the NUT makes up quotations from its members, that is very serious and rather regrettable.
I could not help but notice that the Secretary of State claimed something fairly remarkable in his speech. He said that not only were teachers not particularly fussed by the amount of bureaucracy and paperwork imposed on


them, they welcomed some additional paperwork that they could access by logging on to the Department for Education and Employment website.
We have a Secretary of State who appears to live in a world where teachers, having given their best in the classroom, having gone home to complete course work, marking and reports and having flogged their way through the forms of the day and all the rest of it, are so desperately anxious that they might have run out of things to do that they log on to the internet and go to the DFEE website where, yippee, they find more work. We need a Secretary of State who lives in the real world.

Mr. James Clappison: This has been a very good debate, adorned by the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), who made a model maiden speech. I am sure that her remarks about Michael and Nichola Colvin were appreciated throughout the House and struck a chord with all who knew them. Her warm words were much appreciated. She also made some interesting points about her constituency, and those hon. Members on both sides who said that they looked forward to hearing her speak again were speaking for the whole House.
The debate began with a powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). She made it clear at the outset that we did not set out to denigrate teachers, and it does not do justice to her case to suggest that we did. Those who listened to her speech will have heard her pay a warm tribute to teachers and place on record our appreciation of the hard work that they do.
That appreciation was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), who gave teachers full credit for their work to raise standards, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), who put on the record his appreciation of teachers in his constituency. Both were right to draw attention to the problems of grant-maintained schools. I can confirm from my own experience that the pupil-teacher ratio in grant-maintained schools has deteriorated since the general election, and that such schools have suffered financial problems as a result of the Government's failure to honour their commitment to level up. Grant-maintained schools have found their budgets, in effect, frozen and they have been forced to make difficult economies and to appeal for funds from certain quarters.
From the other side of the House, we heard speeches from the hon. Members for Halton (Mr. Twigg), for Elmet (Mr. Burgon) and for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), the last of whom I congratulate on his appointment as Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Employment. Like him, I am interested in issues of criminal justice; the comments he made about teachers who face allegations of abuse were thoughtful and interesting, and I am sure that we shall return to the subject in future debates.
We also heard from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). He said that, sadly, he was forced to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead. I shall

return the sentiment by saying that, sadly, I am forced to agree with him, especially his remark that there is a gap between the fine words of the Prime Minister and the actions of the Government. That gap is obvious to everyone. There is a gap between what teachers were promised in 1997 and what the Government have delivered.
In case that had escaped Labour Members' attention, we told them about the experiences of teachers. Teachers are not exactly jumping for joy about what has been done since 1997; still less are they dancing with glee at the prospect of the Government's bureaucratic plan for performance-related pay. We have heard about teacher after teacher facing stress and problems arising from increased bureaucracy, but I make no apologies for adding one or two more examples to the long list that we have heard already.
Angie Rutter, a teacher of special needs children, spoke for many when she told the Daily Mail last week
I went into the profession because I enjoy working with children. I get a buzz out of seeing children learn… But in those days most of us didn't realise that all this paperwork was coming. There's a limit to how much you can take on board.
Those sentiments were echoed by a head teacher in my constituency, Mr. Nick Nelson, who was so disgusted by the volume of documents that landed on his desk one morning that he took the step of writing to the Secretary of State to protest. It should be acknowledged that not all of the 10 documents came from the Department for Education and Employment, but six of them did. When one hears, as we have this evening, that the Department has issued 366 separate documents since 1997, it is not surprising that teachers such as Mr. Nelson have been driven to despair.
If the Government will not heed those examples, perhaps they will listen to the views revealed by the National Association of Head Teachers. Some Labour Members have said that what we have told the House does not accord with what they have been told by teachers and head teachers, but perhaps they will listen to the NAHT, which conducted a survey of 3,200 head teachers. The headline conclusion of the survey is that there is
an urgent need to reduce workloads and stress amongst heads and to reduce the number of tasks which are of little value to the education of pupils or to the effective running of schools.
If the Government will not take the NAHT's word for it, perhaps they will take that of Lord Haskins, of the better regulation taskforce. Generally, he is far from being a friend of the Opposition, but the headline conclusion of his report states that
there is a widespread and deeply held view that increased red tape is acting as a distraction from the drive to raise standards.
When asked about that at the launch of his taskforce report, he admitted that the outlook for a business with similar handicaps would be "virtually zero".
It is time the Government began to listen to the volume of evidence about the work load that is being placed on teachers and, in particular, on head teachers. Perhaps they will listen to a head teacher who responded to the NAHT survey. When asked how he had managed to cope, he said:
To cope, I drink alcohol and employ staff with a sense of humour.
I am not suggesting that teachers have been driven to drink by the Government, and I do not condone excessive drinking, but a good sense of humour would come in


handy in dealing with a Government who issue toolkits for cutting bureaucracy—a two-volume handbook on good practice in cutting bureaucracy; who produce such a volume of plans that they need a plan of plans co-ordinating all the other plans; and who refer teachers to the Department for Education and Employment website on cutting burdens on teachers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale referred to that. I can tell him that if teachers had consulted that website at the end of a busy working day, I am not sure how much use they would have found it. They would, however, have been given access to EASEA, which is described as a means to
keep up to date on policy developments with your own customised electronic intray of DfEE publications for schools.
The tip of the day for teachers from the Department for Education and Employment website today is:
The school office collects money for school trips.
I am sure that teachers would never have thought of that.
Against that background of helpful tips from the Government, we are concerned about the effect on recruitment to teacher training. We understand from the Secretary of State that that is a world problem. That may be so, but it has got markedly worse in this country since the Government came to office.
The number of applicants for secondary training courses in particular has gone down significantly. In recruitment to initial teacher training courses, applications are down by 9 per cent. for mathematics, 15 per cent. for science and almost 13 per cent. for technology since the Government took office.
On the Government's statistics, for technology teaching the number of applications has gone down every year since the Government took office, and it is still going down. It is down markedly on the numbers applying under the previous Government, and the Government fell 41 per cent. short of their target for technology teachers. Although the Government make great play of technology, teachers are not coming into the profession to teach the subject.
The Secretary of State referred to the golden hellos and all the other schemes that the Government have introduced. On the basis of figures in May 2000 for teachers starting in September 2000, it seems that the problem is getting worse. Mathematics applications are down by 15 per cent., science applications are down by 12 per cent. and technology applications are down by 17 per cent. That is after the introduction of the Government's much-vaunted golden hellos.
In the words of the old song, it seems that the Government are saying hello, but the applicants are saying goodbye. They are not applying for those courses. To confirm the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), they are also not applying for BEd courses; applications for those courses are down as well. The Secretary of State mentioned that in his opening speech this evening.
The problem with the debate about class sizes, which is of interest to teachers and parents, is that the Government tend to be selective in their statements about the subject. We hear much about class sizes at key stage 1, on which the Government made a pledge. However, we hear less about class sizes for other age groups. Key stage 2 classes are larger today than when the Government took office.
The Secretary of State referred to smaller junior class sizes as an achievement on the Government's part. However, they have managed only a reduction in the higher figure, which they created after taking office. The figure remains higher than when the Government took office. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) may shake her head, but the Government provided the statistics.
Matters are even worse in secondary schools, where class sizes have increased every year since the Government took office. More pupils than ever are in classes of more than 30. The classes that have increased most are those for children under 14, yet the Government claim that they need particular attention.
The problem is reflected in pupil-teacher ratios, about which we hear from the Prime Minister from time to time. He is somewhat selective about the subject. There is some excuse for that: the Prime Minister may be selective about facts because he receives an inadequate briefing from specific quarters. Perhaps I can assist hon. Members by providing the full picture on pupil-teacher ratios.
In 1997, the overall figure for pupil-teacher ratios for all schools—I am not selecting some and leaving out others—was 18.6; in 1998, it increased to 18.9; in 1999, it decreased slightly to 18.8. The prediction for 2000 is that the figure will decrease to 18.6. What a wonderful achievement by new Labour. The Government have managed to return to the position that they inherited in 1997 and about which they complained. The figures increased in the subsequent three years. The Government have delivered nothing on pupil-teacher ratios. [Interruption.] If the Secretary of State disputes the figures, they came from the Department and were placed in the Library.
I shall give the Secretary of State another statistic on an achievement by the Department. According to a written answer he gave me recently, he has managed to double the Department's advertising budget in the past three years on top of all the press releases and extra regulation.
I am tempted to say that the Government's performance on teaching is all mouth and no delivery. However, when considering red tape, a better description would be all mouth and too much delivery. The teaching profession is being suffocated by the volume of red tape and burdensome regulations. Ministers refuse to listen or accept that. Ministers in the Department for Education and Science are the biggest culprits. They talk about cutting bureaucracy, but they continue to churn it out, to the frustration of teachers. That leads to teachers leaving the profession and possibly deters others from joining it. The Department's actions do not assist teachers' cause.
We pay tribute to teachers, who deserve credit. We are worried about the burdens that the Government are placing on them. The voice of teachers has been heard from all parties in the debate.

Ms Dari Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clappison: I shall not give way at this stage because hon. Members have had an opportunity to speak. When Labour Members return to their constituencies, they must face the fact that they have failed to deliver their promises. They have delivered far too many burdens and regulations, failed to help children and not stood the teaching profession in good stead.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): I thank hon. Members for their contributions and, in particular, congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) on making a well-informed maiden speech in which she clearly showed an understanding of and concern for the schools in her constituency. She also paid a generous tribute to her predecessor and his wife. As hon. Members have said, we look forward to hearing many more speeches from her.
The views expressed in this interesting debate reflect the importance of highly skilled, highly motivated teachers to our national well-being. I should like to thank teachers, as have many other hon. Members, for their commitment and hard work, which is producing results for our children. The successful introduction of the literacy and numeracy strategies, higher key stage 2 results, better results for our 16-year-olds in GCSEs and GNVQs and the fact that schools come out of special measures within 18 months rather than 25 all show that teachers have responded to the challenge and are delivering for our children.
We know that we have set a challenging pace of change and recognise the challenges and pressures that that puts on schools and teachers, but we are not interested in change for its own sake. We are interested in outcomes—what we can achieve to raise standards for our children and ensuring that opportunities for higher standards are open to all our children, whatever their background. We are passionate about continuous improvement and helping teachers to do what they do best—teach and raise standards.
The culture that we want in our schools is one not of permanent revolution, but of permanent improvement because that is what our children deserve. It is no good simply telling schools to improve. That call must be backed up with the resources needed to make improvement possible and the support that schools and individual teachers need to find out how they can improve.
The Government are providing that support—an extra £300 million is going to schools as a result of the Budget. As part of that, secondary head teachers will receive between £30,000 and £50,000 each to spend as they choose. I assure the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) that the schools in his constituency will receive that money, which they can use as they wish.
Schools could use that money to buy 3,500 extra teachers£enough to ensure yet another substantial cut in class sizes and, consequently, in teacher work load.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The Minister has made an important point: she says that that money could be used to employ teachers. Will she guarantee now that money would be available for those teachers in future years?

Jacqui Smith: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we have shown our commitment to putting more money into schools; we have delivered on it and will continue to do so.
We have made £5.9 billion available to improve school premises. My hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) rightly highlighted the effect that the school environment has on raising standards. The Government have delivered on that and are providing up to £1 billion this year and next for the improvements proposed in the teaching Green Paper, including better teachers' pay.
My hon. Friends the Members for Halton and for Elmet (Mr. Burgon) made thoughtful speeches and referred to the challenges faced by those who teach disruptive pupils. The Government recognise the pressures and challenges that teachers face. That is why we have already made more money available to support schools and teachers in dealing with those children and why my right hon. Friend recently announced further support for schools and teachers such as learning mentors and learning support units.
Hon. Members will be aware of the descriptions given in the media—and, I regret, on the Floor of the House—of demoralised, disenchanted teachers waiting only for the first chance to leave the profession. That is not the teaching profession that I recognise nor that which my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) eloquently described. Thousands of dedicated people are working to help the children in their charge to reach upwards, whatever their background. Their success is shown time and again—not only when exam results are published.
As class sizes are falling, the number of teachers is increasing. There are now nearly 3,000 more teachers in permanent posts than there were last year, and the percentage of unfilled posts in schools is less than half of what it was 10 years ago. For every secondary-school vacancy there is an average of 12 applicants, and for every primary-school vacancy there are 16. That is not evidence of a profession that is in decline, but evidence of one that is at last beginning to be properly resourced in terms of money, support, training and leadership.
I was concerned by some of what was said by the hon. Members for Hertford and Stortford and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) about supply teaching. We need to make it clear that supply teachers are qualified: they have qualified-teacher status.

Mr. Willis: Will the Minister give way?

Jacqui Smith: No, because Opposition Members did not.
Quality, however, needs to be approved. We are consulting on measures to introduce a quality mark. to provide a distance-learning package and to give more support to teachers in schools.

Mr. Willis: Will the Minister give way?

Hon. Members: Give way!

Jacqui Smith: No, I will not.
It is because we recognised the need to ensure that good-quality people come into teaching and that "shortage" subjects were covered that we announced, on


30 March, a package of measures to boost teacher training recruitment, involving a training salary of £6,000, £150 a week for all secondary postgraduates during their training, and a further £4,000 for those who find posts as newly qualified maths, modern foreign languages, science and technology teachers. Since that announcement, applications for postgraduate teacher training courses are 22 per cent. up on those in the same period last year, and 500 more people have applied than did so during the corresponding six weeks in 1999.

Mr. Willis: Will the Minister give way?

Jacqui Smith: I will give way now.

Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I thank her for her courtesy.
My point was not about supply teachers. I accept that most supply teachers are fully qualified. I was talking about people who are teaching in our schools, but do not have formal teaching qualifications.

Jacqui Smith: I think my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State responded to that point earlier.
Let me make a point about the hon. Gentleman's commitment to getting more people into the teaching profession, which I do not doubt. Tonight he has taken a statesmanlike and, dare I say, headmasterly approach to the debate—not an approach that he took in his speech to the National Union of Teachers, which he commended for its militancy. He said:
Well it is just like old times! Government ministers being heckled! Conference in militant mood! Delegates walking out! Well conference it is about time teachers displayed their anger at the way they are being treated!
I do not think that that is the sort of example we would want to set the people whom we are trying to encourage into the profession.
Many have commented on the burdens being placed on teachers, especially paperwork. Let us be honest about what is being distributed to schools. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the vast majority of communications sent to them this year have concerned the literacy and numeracy strategy, teaching reform and pay. Only two documents sent to primary schools, and three sent to secondary schools, required responses from head teachers.
Is it being suggested that we should not have supported teachers in their delivery of higher standards in reading, writing and maths? Should we not be telling schools about the support and training that are available to implement teacher reforms and higher pay? I accept the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Huddersfield and for Elmet about the need to communicate, about the threshold, and about the importance of supporting head teachers. That is why we must communicate with schools, which is what we are doing.
The Conservatives, of course, oppose the literacy and numeracy strategy. They are not clear about performance-related pay: that is why they oppose our communications with schools. However, I am keen for us to free up teachers to teach.
As has been mentioned, the Haskins report identified the steps that we have already taken and that are planned. It said, for example:
We found that the Government's radical agenda for raising standards in schools is widely respected and already seen to be delivering results. Additional regulation is inevitable in implementing such an agenda.
However, I am concerned that we ensure that we do everything that we can to free up teachers to teach. That is why we introduced rigorous—

Mr. Clappison: Will the Minister give way?

Jacqui Smith: No.
That is why we introduced rigorous controls over—

Mr. Clappison: Will the Minister give way?

Jacqui Smith: No. The hon. Gentleman did not.
That is why we introduced rigorous controls over what is sent to schools and are increasingly making publications and information available on the internet—an innovation mocked by the Opposition. As they are keen to quote teachers, may I quote two comments about our EASEA website? One person said:
I find access to the material straightforward and it is helpful that my own office does not become cluttered with paper.
Another person said:
The In-tray has shown itself to be very useful in accessing relevant documents; can it now be developed as suggested by another respondent to include information from other agencies?
There is support for our activities from those people who are using the system.
We are working vigorously to reduce unnecessary requests for information from the centre and to improve management systems at all levels in the education service. We estimate that, since August, our changes to what is collected and to how it is collected have saved about 10,000 hours of work for schools and local education authorities.
As was recognised by my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet, we are aware of the pressures that fall on small schools. That is why we have gone even further in providing support for them. This year and next, £80 million will be available, so that small schools can employ extra administration staff and invest in information and communication technology to help with administration.
We are funding the recruitment of 20,000 teaching assistants to help teachers in the classroom. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield made an important point about Ofsted. We have already acted to reduce the lead-in time and developed light-touch inspections.
The Opposition have been quick to carp, but slow to tell us what they would not have done and not have issued. Do they want to scrap the literacy hour? It appears so. Do they want schools not to teach a daily maths lesson? Apparently. What would they do to help schools to deal


with disruptive pupils? Let them get on with it. How would they encourage the best people to come into the teaching profession? Apparently, by talking down the profession in the way in which they have this evening.
Not only does the Conservative party not take any responsibility for developing policy now. It does not take responsibility even for what happened when they were in government. The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) recently addressed the NUT. She was jeered by delegates—fair enough, that happens to the best of us. However, her response to the jeering was to say:
I can hear your scepticism, but I was not here last time.
That may be the case, but many of us were here during the Tory years as teachers and as parents. We know what it was like to have national curriculum folders dumped on us with no consultation, to have our youngest children starting their school career in large classes, to spend our time shifting buckets around to catch drips from ceilings that there was no money to mend, and to have four out of 10 primary children leaving school without the basic reading skills to progress. The induction year for new teachers had been scrapped and there was no support for head teacher training. The hon. Lady may wash her hands of those realities, but they are what the Government have started to address.
Our key themes are better pay, more training for leadership, more support for schools and teachers and a commitment to improve training for teachers throughout their career. We are already delivering on them.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 313.

Question accordingly negatived

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 158.

Division No. 197]
[10.13 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Alexander, Douglas
Davidson, Ian


Allen, Graham
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Denham, John


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Dobbin, Jim


Ashton, Joe
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Austin, John
Donohoe, Brian H


Barnes, Harry
Doran, Frank


Barron, Kevin
Dowd, Jim


Bayley, Hugh
Drew, David


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Bennett, Andrew F
Edwards, Huw


Benton, Joe
Efford, Clive


Bermingham, Gerald
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Best, Harold
Ennis, Jeff


Betts, Clive
Etherington, Bill


Blackman, Liz
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Blears, Ms Hazel
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Blizzard, Bob
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Flint, Caroline


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Flynn, Paul


Borrow, David
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Foulkes, George


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fyfe, Maria


Browne, Desmond
Galloway, George


Burden, Richard
Gardiner, Barry


Burgon, Colin
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Godman, Dr Norman A


Cann, Jamie
Godsiff, Roger


Caplin, Ivor
Golding, Mrs Llin


Casale, Roger
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Caton, Martin
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cawsey, Ian
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Grogan, John


Clapham, Michael
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hain, Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hanson, David


Clelland, David
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Coaker, Vernon
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Coffey, Ms Ann
Healey, John


Colman, Tony
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Connarty, Michael
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hepburn, Stephen


Cooper, Yvette
Heppell, John


Corbett, Robin
Hesford, Stephen


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Corston, Jean
Hill, Keith


Cousins, Jim
Hinchliffe, David


Cranston, Ross
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Crausby, David
Hoey, Kate


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hope, Phil


Cummings, John
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)



Hoyle, Lindsay


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Dalyell, Tam
Humble, Mrs Joan





Hutton, John
Mullin, Chris


Iddon, Dr Brian
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Illsley, Eric
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Norris, Dan


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jamieson, David
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jenkins, Brian
Olner, Bill


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Organ, Mrs Diana



Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Pendry, Tom



Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pollard, Kerry


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pond, Chris


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pope, Greg


Keeble, Ms Sally
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kemp, Fraser
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Primarolo, Dawn


Kidney, David
Prosser, Gwyn


Kilfoyle, Peter
Purchase, Ken


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Quinn, Lawrie


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Rapson, Syd


Laxton, Bob
Raynsford, Nick


Lepper, David
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Leslie, Christopher
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rooney, Terry


Lock, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McAvoy, Thomas
Rowlands, Ted


McCabe, Steve
Roy, Frank


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Ruane, Chris


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Ruddock, Joan



Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Ryan, Ms Joan


Macdonald, Calum
Sarwar, Mohammad


McDonnell, John
Savidge, Malcolm


McFall, John
Sawford, Phil


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Sedgemore, Brian


McIsaac, Shona
Shaw, Jonathan


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sheerman, Barry


Mackinlay, Andrew
Shipley, Ms Debra


McNulty, Tony
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Mactaggart, Fiona
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McWalter, Tony
Singh, Marsha


McWilliam, John
Skinner, Dennis


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)



Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Maxton, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Southworth, Ms Helen


Meale, Alan
Spellar, John


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Squire, Ms Rachel


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Steinberg, Gerry


Miller, Andrew
Stevenson, George


Mitchell, Austin
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Moffatt, Laura
Stinchcombe, Paul


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stringer, Graham


Morley, Elliot
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)



Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Temple-Morris, Peter



Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Mountford, Kali
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Mudie, George
Timms, Stephen






Todd, Mark
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Touhig, Don



Trickett, Jon
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Truswell, Paul
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wills, Michael


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Winnick, David


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Wood, Mike


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Worthington, Tony


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Wray, James


Vis, Dr Rudi
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Walley, Ms Joan
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Ward, Ms Claire
Wyatt, Derek


Wareing, Robert N



Watts, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


White, Brian
Mr. Mike Hall and


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Allan, Richard
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Amess, David
Duncan Smith, Iain


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Evans, Nigel


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Faber, David


Baldry, Tony
Fabricant, Michael


Ballard, Jackie
Fallon, Michael


Beggs, Roy
Fearn, Ronnie


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Flight, Howard


Bercow, John
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Beresford, Sir Paul
Foster, Don (Bath)


Blunt, Crispin
Fraser, Christopher


Boswell, Tim
Garnier, Edward


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Gibb, Nick


Brady, Graham
Gidley, Ms Sandra


Brake, Tom
Gill, Christopher


Brazier, Julian
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Breed, Colin
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Green, Damian


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Greenway, John


Burnett, John
Grieve, Dominic


Burns, Simon
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Burstow, Paul
Hammond, Philip


Butterfill, John
Hancock, Mike


Cable, Dr Vincent
Harris, Dr Evan


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Harvey, Nick



Hawkins, Nick


Cash, William
Hayes, John


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)



Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Chope, Christopher
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Clappison, James
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jack, Rt Hon Michael



Keetch, Paul


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Key, Robert


Collins, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Cran, James
Kirkwood, Archy


Curry, Rt Hon David
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui





Lansley, Andrew
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Leigh, Edward
Ruffley, David


Letwin, Oliver
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
St Aubyn, Nick


Livsey, Richard
Sanders, Adrian


Llwyd, Elfyn
Sayeed, Jonathan


Loughton, Tim
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Luff, Peter
Shepherd, Richard


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


McCartney, Robert (N Down)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Soames, Nicholas


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Spring, Richard


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Steen, Anthony


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stunell, Andrew


Maginnis, Ken
Swayne, Desmond


Major, Rt Hon John
Syms, Robert


Malin, Humfrey
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maples, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mates, Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


May, Mrs Theresa
Townend, John


Moore, Michael
Tredinnick, David


Moss, Malcolm
Trend, Michael


Nicholls, Patrick
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Norman, Archie
Tyler, Paul


Oaten, Mark
Walter, Robert


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Waterson, Nigel


Öpik, Lembit
Webb, Steve


Ottaway, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Page, Richard
Willetts, David


Paice, James
Willis, Phil


Paisley, Rev Ian
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Paterson, Owen
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Pickles, Eric
Yeo, Tim


Randall, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Rendel, David



Robathan, Andrew
Tellers for the Noes:


Robertson, Laurence
Mr. Peter Atkinson and



Mr. Stephen Day.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the substantial steps taken by the Government to improve teaching and the rewards for teaching, which include the introduction of a General Teaching Council, the development of better pay for good teaching, the introduction of training salaries to improve teacher recruitment, new measures to improve the training of headteachers, the Better Regulation Task Force Report on 'Red Tape Affecting Headteachers', administrative support for schools, more classroom assistants, lower infant and junior class sizes, reform of induction and teacher training, and significant improvements in funding for school budgets and school modernisation; and notes that these measures have already reversed a legacy of budget cuts, rising class sizes and inadequate training inherited from the previous administration.

Northern Ireland (Flags)

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson): I beg to move,
That the draft Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 15th May, be approved.
I am sure that the House will appreciate, in the current circumstances, the urgency for dealing with this issue this evening without, I am afraid, the usual courtesies of consultation, for which I apologise.
It does not need me to point out that in Northern Ireland symbols matter a lot, and this is something that we need to address. Symbols represent the different identities and different traditions of those who live in this part of the United Kingdom and, like other symbols, flags have historically been a source of conflict that has driven people apart. My reason for bringing this draft order before the House tonight is not to perpetuate such symbolic clashes, but to try and ensure that they do not become a permanent source of division in the future.
Northern Ireland, in my view, has never had a better chance than now to leave behind it the divisions of the past. In under a week, I hope that, following the IRA's historic statement, the restored institutions will get down once again to the business of governing in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland. I believe that these institutions—politics itself—have no hope of functioning smoothly and effectively until old constitutional sores and provocations are put to one side.
That was the thinking behind the Good Friday agreement, a framework in which both Unionists and nationalists can participate together in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland. They can do so while remaining every inch a Unionist, nationalist or, indeed, republican, as they wish, as long as they do so by peaceful and democratic means. This is the foundation of the new dispensation being created in Northern Ireland.
Without in any way surrendering their fundamental political beliefs, both main traditions now agree on the fundamental constitutional issue. They agree that it should be settled exclusively on the basis of consent, with the will of the people, freely expressed, prevailing over guns, bullying and intimidation. In particular, the participants in the agreement explicitly accept:
the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland…is to maintain the Union and accordingly, that Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish…
Let me say in parenthesis that I think that it is extraordinary that such an agreement, which enshrines the principle of consent, should be misrepresented by some people as putting Northern Ireland on a motorway out of the United Kingdom. That is emphatically not the case. All the Good Friday agreement does is put the people of Northern Ireland in the driving seat. They, and only they, decide and will decide where Northern Ireland goes. It cannot go anywhere, whether by motorway, highway or byway, without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland, and with this Government it will not.
As far as Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are concerned, let me make this clear: that means that the Union flag continues to fly over our buildings in Northern Ireland on the basis applied

elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The principle of consent was a cornerstone of the Good Friday agreement. As such, it must receive more than lip service, as too must another cornerstone—the principle of equality: that both traditions are equally valid and that there must be
just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos, and aspirations of both.

Mr. Eric Forth: Can the Secretary of State guarantee the House tonight that, were it to give him the powers that he seeks in the order, only the Union flag will fly over government buildings in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Mandelson: Yes.
On this basis, let me address directly a concern which I know is sincerely held by some Unionists: that the rights of equality for the minority in Northern Ireland are currently in danger of cutting across the principle of consent enjoyed by the majority, that the agreement has led to a climate in which, bit by bit, the last vestiges of Britishness are being dismantled, and that the argument about flags is symptomatic of a deeper malaise.
I understand that analysis and the fears from which it springs, but I completely reject it. There may be a simplistic view among some nationalists—not, I hasten to say, my colleague the Irish Foreign Minister, who is too wise for such an approach—that the display of emblems of Britishness is somehow incompatible with the Good Friday agreement. That is emphatically not the Government's view. As long as, consistent with the Good Friday agreement, symbols and emblems are used sensitively and in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division, I see no difficulty in their use, and my actions will be based on that view.

Mr. Peter Robinson: rose—

Mr. Mandelson: I will give way in a moment.
The fact is that the Good Friday agreement is no more about decommissioning Britishness than it is about suppressing Irishness. In a society such as Northern Ireland's, either approach would be wrong in principle and bound only to lead to the alienation of a significant section of the population. As I have said before, we will have failed if at the end of the day, with all that we are trying to do and all the progress that I believe we are making, we have simply replaced an alienated nationalist tradition with an alienated Unionist one.
Nor do I believe that, as the agreement is worked out, we will see any significant diminution in the sense of Britishness in Northern Ireland. Speaking for myself, I welcome that. The Union has great strengths and brings benefits to all those living in its constituent parts. But there is—and I take this as an example of where our actions are resisting any diminution of Britishness—no recommendation in the criminal justice review to drop the title "royal" in the courts of justice or the royal arms from the outside of courtrooms. I hope and believe that the royal family's close connection with and interest in Northern Ireland will be not only be sustained, but enhanced. Britishness, therefore, far from being on its way out, will remain while there is a population wishing to express it.
Against that background, let me turn to the issue of flags, unless the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) wishes to intervene at this stage.

Mr. Robinson: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. My intervention is on that issue.
Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the provisions of the order and his remarks to the House would apply to Parliament Buildings, Stormont?

Mr. Mandelson: I have considered that matter. In the circumstances, I believe that it would be better to leave the arrangements for Parliament buildings—which have worked quite satisfactorily to date—to the Members of that Assembly. If the matter has to be reviewed, then reviewed it will be, but the hon. Gentleman will accept that the problem has been not at Parliament buildings, but elsewhere.
It would be surprising indeed if all evidence of the past clashes and conflicts in Northern Ireland disappeared overnight. Of course, it will not do so. As I have said, the flying of flags has been a battleground in the past, and proved something of the same during the first weeks of the devolved Executive. Under direct rule, the position was that the Union flag was flown from all Government buildings on certain set days. Those included most of the days on which the Union flag was flown from Government buildings elsewhere in the United Kingdom. However, also included were some extra days specific only to Northern Ireland; for example, St. Patrick's day and 12 July.
The basis of flag flying is, formally, a royal command by Her Majesty issued on the royal prerogative. There is no other basis in law. Under devolution, those powers of the royal prerogative were transferred, in respect of devolved matters, to the individual Northern Ireland Ministers and Departments. During the 10 weeks of devolution, there was—broadly—a common position among the Northern Ireland Ministers on how they should exercise their prerogative powers in relation to the Union flag within their respective Departments.
The result was that most Departments flew the Union flag from all their buildings on all the specified days. However, two Departments, under the instructions of their Ministers, did not fly the Union flag at all. Let me make it clear: I believe that this difficult—though symbolic—issue would be best resolved by the Executive Committee itself and I believe that the best way of doing so is by accommodation on the principles of the Good Friday agreement and the principle of respect for both identities.
I believe that practice in Northern Ireland should reflect practice elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: I think that the Secretary of State has half answered the question that I was about to put. When one reads the Good Friday agreement—especially the first pages of the text—is it not clear that there can be only one answer, under the agreement, as to what flag should be flown over Government buildings? Therefore, the actions of certain members of the Executive in not doing so flew completely in the face of the text and the spirit of the agreement.

Mr. Mandelson: Arguably, yes. That is why I am taking this action this evening. It is not for me to rehearse

arguments that are better put by those who believe in them—notably Sinn Fein Ministers and members of the Executive. The argument that they would put to the hon. Gentleman, if they were here, is that the Good Friday agreement also enshrines respect for the identities, the ethos and the traditions of all in the community; and that they should not be forced to accept and to fly the flag—the chief emblem or symbol—of somebody else's tradition.
None the less—

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Mandelson: If hon. Members do not mind, I should like to make a little progress.
Notwithstanding the argument that those Ministers and members of the Executive would put to hon. Members if they were here, the Union flag remains the flag of the United Kingdom, of which Northern Ireland is a constituent part and, while that is the wish of the majority of its people, the flag will continue to fly over Northern Ireland.
As I said, this matter is best resolved by the Executive. If it were possible to reach a collective view and to move by consensus, I should welcome that. An initial attempt was made during the early stages of the Executive.
However, I do not want to see the Executive consumed for weeks and months by shadow boxing over an essentially symbolic issue. I want to see the Executive build up a sense of common collective purpose and approach to the business of governing Northern Ireland in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland.
Therefore, the draft order provides me with a reserve power to set regulations on flag flying from Government buildings. I shall use this reserve power only if it becomes clear that the Executive is unable to agree a way forward and the issue is becoming a palpable source of division among its members.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On parity of esteem, does the Secretary of State believe, in this instance, what the negotiator of IRA-Sinn Fein told the people of Northern Ireland last night on television? He said that the two flags must fly and that that was the only way that there could be parity of esteem. He said that the tricolour must fly beside the Union flag on these buildings.

Mr. Mandelson: The negotiator said that as an act of generosity, but it is not a view that I accept and it is not my definition of parity of esteem.
Moreover, if I believe that it is best to exercise the reserve power, I shall exercise it in consultation with the Assembly and the Executive. The draft order requires me to consult the Assembly on any regulations that I may be minded to make, and to take into account any views it reports to me on those regulations. It also requires me to have regard to the provisions of the Good Friday agreement and it requires any regulations to be approved in both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Robert McCartney: If Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and if, as the Secretary of State suggests, the same regulations on flying the flag as apply in the rest of the United Kingdom should properly apply in Northern Ireland, why cannot the matter be solved by simply stating that instead of through the process of consultation?

Mr. Mandelson: The hon. and learned Gentleman will acknowledge and accept that, at the moment, this is a devolved matter. I do not want to go simply crashing into the situation; I want to show respect for the principles of devolution that the House has previously debated and agreed. All that I am doing at this stage is asking the House to agree a draft order that will enable me to bring forward regulations to regulate these matters if local parties, local politicians and Ministers are simply unable to reach agreement among themselves on the best way forward. That would surely be the preferable and the ideal course for them to take. However, as I say, if they cannot do that, I do not want to sit back powerless, watching a not unimportant but ultimately symbolic issue continuing to divide the Executive and pulling apart what might otherwise be a potentially consensual approach on other matters in the Assembly. Bigger and greater matters, other than the flying of the Union flag, are of direct relevance to the people of Northern Ireland and they are there for the Executive and Assembly to trouble themselves with.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I accept the Secretary of State's point that there are other important issues, but surely this is the constitutional issue of the flag of the nation flying throughout the nation and throughout the kingdom wherever that may be. It is not a devolved issue for Northern Ireland, but one that affects the kingdom as a whole.

Mr. Mandelson: At the moment—and until the House agrees the draft order—it is a devolved matter.

Rev. Martin Smyth: indicated dissent.

Mr. Mandelson: It is a devolved matter and it also has very great constitutional implications not just for Northern Ireland, but—I readily accept—for the United Kingdom as whole. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that the House should address itself in the way that it is doing to the draft order that I am asking it to agree.

Mr. Michael Howard: If the Secretary of State exercised his powers in the order only in accordance with the unequivocal undertakings that he has given to the House—for example, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—this evening, would it not follow that the consultation exercise, which is provided for in the order, would be a sham? Indeed, does it not mean that the Secretary of State would be rendering himself vulnerable to judicial review? [Interruption.] I should be very happy to give him the benefit of my experience.
Would not it be far better to avoid any such difficulties and for the Secretary of State to act on the suggestion that was just made to him? He should give effect to those unequivocal undertakings in this order and provide that in the event that the Executive Committee is unable to reach

agreement, the Union flag will fly on Government buildings in Northern Ireland as it does in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Mandelson: Obviously, I defer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's experience of judicial review, which is superior to mine. [HON. MEMBERS: "So far."] Indeed, so far. Every day that I have woken up in Northern Ireland, I have been exposed to the perils of judicial review. The situation is not quite as simple as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says because the prescribed days for flying the national flag can change from year to year.
There is another flag that some might want to fly in Northern Ireland; indeed, it was recently flown from the Parliament buildings. I do not want to provoke the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I refer to the flag of the European Union. The flying of all sorts of flags has to be regulated.
I hope that a common-sense arrangement, respecting the principles of the Good Friday agreement—and I mean all the principles—can be arrived at.

Mr. William Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mandelson: No. Many other hon. Members want to participate.

Mr. Cash: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The Secretary of State is not giving way.

Mr. Mandelson: As I was saying before I was nearly so rudely interrupted, I think that it is possible—

Mr. Cash: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Only one Member can address the House at a time. The Secretary of State is trying to make a speech.

Mr. Mandelson: With reasonable good will on the part of all members of the Executive—

Mr. Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mandelson: No, I have made it absolutely clear that I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Cash: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he is not giving way. I can hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, so the hon. Gentleman should also be able to hear him.

Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Cash: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should sit down while I am addressing the House. I hope that he is not going to make a bogus point of order because he has been unable to intervene.

Mr. Cash: My point of order is simple, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I may say so, the Secretary of State is misleading the House with respect to an important point about the Belfast—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have to withdraw that statement. The Secretary of State is not misleading the House. No Member is misleading the House.

Mr. Cash: I am perfectly prepared to say that the Secretary of State has misinterpreted the Belfast agreement—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Do I take it that the hon. Gentleman is withdrawing his statement?

Mr. Cash: I regret to say that I will withdraw the original statement—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw his statement that the Secretary of State is misleading the House. Will he do so?

Mr. Cash: I will withdraw the statement, but I also—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to withdraw the statement?

Mr. Cash: Yes, I have said so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Well, there is no point of order. I call the Secretary of State.

Mr. Mandelson: As I was saying, I hope that with a reasonable amount of good will on the part of all members of the Executive this matter can be properly resolved. Rather than see the enthusiasm, vision and high hopes with which many people greet the prospect of a return of devolved power to Northern Ireland frittered away on endless symbolic disputes such as this, I am prepared to try to settle this potentially divisive issue myself. It is on that basis that I commend the draft order to the House.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: I accept the Secretary of State's apology and explanation of why he could not give the House, myself and other spokesmen more notice of the draft order. We are in a fast-moving situation and it was right and proper that, at short notice, the draft order was brought before the House.
As far as the order goes—although I do not think that it goes far enough—it is broadly helpful. I think that hon. Members would agree, in reflecting on legislation that we passed a year ago, that we were unwise to have transferred to the Executive the decision on flags flying from public buildings. That view is now clearly shared by the Secretary of State. The order, to all intents and purposes, but not as specifically as we would like, will ensure that the decision is a reserved matter.
I shall briefly describe the Opposition's position; it is very straightforward and simple. We are the first to acknowledge readily, happily and warmly that Northern Ireland is very much part of the United Kingdom. It is absolutely clear that, by way of consent, the majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the United Kingdom. While that consent is forthcoming, which I hope will be for a very long time, it must be right and proper that Northern Ireland is treated exactly the same as the rest of the United Kingdom—no better, no worse—and that on the matter of flying flags on public buildings, it should be treated identically to other parts of the United Kingdom. That is my understanding of what

the Secretary of State said, particularly in his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
I endorse the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) that, given that the Secretary of State is so clear and so much in agreement with us, we cannot quite see the point of the order not being more specific and clear—that the matter is reserved and the Secretary of State rightly believes that, as Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, it should be treated identically to the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that there are wider implications? We also have devolved bodies in Scotland and Wales. Is he agreeing with his hon. Friends on the Back Benches, who seem to imply that any time such a body disagrees about something, we in London should simply step in and say that we will take over? Surely there is a principle that devolution must be allowed to work, and therefore the terms of the order make more sense than his hon. Friends have suggested.

Mr. MacKay: I am grateful to the hon. Lady because she neatly takes me to my next point.
Huge offence was caused because two Ministers in the Executive, both representing Sinn Fein—the Minister for Education and the Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety—refused to fly the Union flag on days when it was flown elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and instead wished to fly the tricolour. That has been very harmful to the process that the hon. Lady and I support. Therefore, it must be right and proper that the matter is reserved. As the Secretary of State rightly pointed out just a moment ago, that means that the Executive can get on with more relevant matters and he can make the final decision.

Mr. Edward Leigh: The Secretary of State has made it absolutely clear that only the Union flag will fly, but I am not entirely clear whether Sinn Fein Ministers will still be able to refuse to fly any flag. Is that right?

Mr. MacKay: Subject to the Secretary of State putting me right, my understanding of the order is that if agreement cannot be reached within the Executive, he will take the decision. He has made clear to our right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst what his decision will be. Those Ministers will not be entitled to overrule the Secretary of State's decision in respect of their public buildings. I do not see the Secretary of State rising to tell me that I have misinterpreted the order—in fact, I think that he is now vaguely acknowledging that I am correct. That is as close to confirmation as I am likely to obtain from him, and I am grateful for that apparently positive movement. I think that we can take my answer as accurate.
I have a word or two to say to any Members of Parliament who are thinking of opposing the order. If they do so and they win, the status quo will remain. It is distinctly possible—even probable—that a new Executive


will soon be formed, and the rules state that that Executive must contain two Sinn Fein Ministers. Therefore, the result of rejecting the order will be a return to the situation in which Sinn Fein Ministers provocatively fly the tricolour instead of the Union flag. I cannot believe that that is what those hon. Members want.
We support the order, but we regret that the Secretary of State has not gone further and put in the order his clear and unambiguous response to questions asked today. He has clearly and categorically said that, as and when he takes over responsibility for the matter, which I fear that he will inevitably have to do—deep down, he knows that the Executive will not agree on the flags issue, which was the subject of fundamental disagreement between Ministers of different parties within the Executive—the Union flag will fly on public buildings on appropriate days, exactly as it does elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I still require clarification. Does my right hon. Friend think that the Secretary of State would in any circumstances permit the tricolour and the Union jack to be flown side by side on a public building? I hope that the answer is no. Through my right hon. Friend, I say to the Secretary of State that the issue is not merely symbolic: as one Member said, it is constitutional, and that is more than symbolic.

Mr. MacKay: It is not for me to stand at the Dispatch Box and translate the Secretary of State's words, but my understanding of his remarks is that they were absolutely clear and unequivocal—to echo my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe. If and when—in my view, when—the matter becomes one for the right hon. Gentleman's decision, the Union flag and the Union flag alone will fly from public buildings, exactly as it does in Macclesfield and elsewhere. I think that the Secretary of State is now nodding, so we have an absolute, categoric answer.
To conclude, we support the order, even though we regret that it is not more straightforward. None the less, we are pleased that, in replying to various interventions, the Secretary of State has, from the Dispatch Box and from a sedentary position, made clear what the position will be when he is in charge of flags. For that, we are grateful.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: First, I have a small gripe about the process of communication. I understand the importance of moving quickly to keep pace with events and circumstances that change hourly, if not minute by minute. However, it has been difficult to obtain information: at one point, I was given the impression that officials had no knowledge whatever of what would happen tonight, even though it had been announced to the press and, through the Government Whips Office, to other parties that the order would be debated tonight. I understand that the situation is fast moving, but the "I can neither confirm nor deny" approach was not 100 per cent. helpful. Perhaps we can tighten up communication between the parties on such matters.
My main point relates to how issues of devolution and flags have been handled elsewhere. In February, there was a debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly about the

flying of flags. An Alliance party staff member was asked to research the attitude adopted to flags by the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. He telephoned the Scottish Parliament first and was passed around several extensions before he found anyone who could tell him which flags, if any, were flown from the building. Upon calling the Welsh Assembly, he was greeted by a long silence from a Liberal Democrat researcher, who went to look out of the window and was astounded to find not only the Welsh flag and the Union jack, but the European flag flying over Cardiff. Interestingly enough, that did not cause a walk-out or any suspension of the process of the Welsh Assembly—[Interruption.]—although I know that some members of the Opposition think that it should.
Not surprisingly, flags have taken on profound symbolism in Northern Ireland, as the debate suggests. In that context, it makes sense to put the order through Parliament. The Secretary of State has been clear about the implications. However, I should like to think that what is needed is a not a change of flags, but a change of attitude. That is the ultimate goal of the process.
The challenge is not to attempt to eliminate the difference and the strongly held national identities in Northern Ireland. Instead, we should try to eliminate the fear of the difference and start to value that difference. Once we do that, I have no doubt that the flags issue will fade away into the ether, and more importantly, we will make significant progress in valuing the difference between the communities and getting on with the process of allowing Northern Ireland to govern itself.

Mr. David Trimble: For many years, it was traditional for members of our party to say on occasions such as this that it was regrettable that legislation was being enacted for Northern Ireland by this abbreviated procedure, instead of being enacted properly on the Floor of the House. Were it being enacted properly on the Floor of the House through a normal Bill, it would be possible for the Bill to be comprehensive and apply to all parts of the United Kingdom, and thus to anticipate problems that might arise elsewhere. The Government should be aware that problems of a similar nature might well arise elsewhere.
It is necessary that the legislation goes through, and goes through quickly, because it is necessary that the issue be settled. Unfortunately, however, I believe that the form of the order will not settle the issue and may contain the seeds of future trouble.
The legislation would not be necessary if there were any proper law on the existence of the United Kingdom's national flag. The existence of the flag and the occasions on which it is flown are matters of custom, practice and administrative procedures, not of law. That was not a weakness in the past. It is part of the way in which we are accustomed to doing things, but it has caused a weakness on this occasion. Because of the difficulties that have arisen, it is necessary to put the flying of the flag on a legal basis.
That would not be necessary had nationalists in Northern Ireland observed the agreement. As was pointed out to the Secretary of State in an excellent intervention, the agreement is clear on the matter. It is clear about Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom. In the agreement, nationalists recognised the legitimacy of Northern Ireland's position in the United Kingdom.
There is only one sovereignty and only one national flag, and the issue should not have arisen. It has arisen because some nationalists do not, in practice, operate the agreement and are failing to implement it. Obviously, Sinn Fein Ministers come into that category, but we wonder whether some other nationalists are in that category as well.
The Secretary of State was extremely kind to the Irish Foreign Minister in his reference to him. However, comments have been attributed to the Irish Foreign Minister, and not repudiated by him, in which he has asserted that the institutions in Northern Ireland should have no element of Britishness about them. That assertion is utterly unacceptable, quite wrong and completely contrary to the agreement. I hope that it is clearly squashed by the Government's action tonight. That mistaken view should not be sustained.
I fear that the legislation will not settle the matter that should have been settled. As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) pointed out, it should not have been a devolved matter at all. The existence of the national flag is not a regional matter. The existence and the treatment of the national flag should not come under the purview of a devolved regional administration; it should have been reserved as a constitutional matter. The draftsmen of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 slipped up. The order should have repaired that omission simply by treating the national flag as a reserved matter.
The order contains weaknesses. Making the order a matter of apparent discretion for a Secretary of State from time to time is a mistake. I accept that successive Secretaries of State from 1972 to now have, as a matter of administrative practice, issued a list of official flag days each year. However, the order will be matter of dispute in future. It would therefore have been better to place official flag days on a statutory basis and thus avoid future dispute.
A further mistake by the Secretary of State is to refer the matter to the Assembly. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's reasons for doing that, but the whole point of the constitutional provisions in the agreement was to settle such issues. Why is he pushing a constitutional issue on to the Assembly? How will that facilitate smooth working together? Putting a constitutional issue back on to the Assembly will be divisive; it will create division on constitutional lines. Does the Secretary of State want that? I am sure that his consultation procedure was well intentioned, but the order will be divisive.
The order will also be unfair to moderate nationalists. We know the position that extreme nationalists will adopt; we know what Sinn Fein will do. The order will make life difficult for moderate nationalists, including those in the Social Democratic and Labour party. Does the Secretary of State want that? The Unionists' position, and that of Sinn Fein will be clear. The only people who will be put in a spot by the Secretary of State's consulting the Assembly are members of the SDLP. From their practice in the past, I am sorry to say that they will probably feel that they have to be more nationalist and republican than the republicans. It is unwise to push them into that position when some of them do not want to be there.
There is an interesting contrast, which the Secretary of State mentioned, between the order and chapter 8, paragraph 61, of the criminal justice review. It states:
We considered the removal of symbols but this could be misinterpreted as inconsistent with Northern Ireland's constitutional position.
That is right. The Secretary of State rightly said that the criminal justice review provides for the retention of the word "royal" on the royal courts of justice, its badge and the flag. It is right to do that. However, what did the Patten commission do with policing? It might remove the word "royal" and it recommended the removal of the badge and the flag.
The Secretary of State has rightly held up the criminal justice review as an example of good practice. He is right to do that. We urge him to be consistent and to extend its principles—which he upholds in the order with regard to Government buildings—to policing. Why except police stations? They should be treated in the same way as courts and Government buildings.

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: It is right that paragraph 4 (4) of the statutory instrument sets it in the context of the Belfast agreement. It is important to remember that the Good Friday agreement enjoyed the overwhelming support of people north and south of the border and the majority of both communities. Despite the uncertainties and vicissitudes of recent months, the agreement continues to enjoy majority support.
For some people, flags are merely coloured pieces of cloth. However, for others, they are potent symbols. I am aware of that because I have recently returned from North America. It is definitely the case in Northern Ireland, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) suggested. It would also be fair to say that, in Northern Ireland, if flags are a potent symbol, symbols are perhaps more potent than in many other parts of the United Kingdom.
Flags can be potent symbols in a positive fashion. They are symbols of community identity and sources of pride and celebration. However, they can undoubtedly cause offence and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, they can cause conflict.
In the right context, the Union flag, as my right hon. Friend correctly referred to it, or the green, white and orange tricolour can inspire bonhomie and a spirit of community. However, in the wrong context in Northern Ireland, they can undoubtedly inflame aggression. Not for nothing have flags been thought of as battle standards or battle honours, but we must consider them in the context of peace. We are working towards peace in Northern Ireland, albeit an imperfect one. The guns are mostly silent and the number of murders and bomb outrages has reduced.
To respond to a remark made by the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) only this weekend, let me say that we are not talking about preventing the planting of bombs only in London. The overwhelming majority of Members on both sides of the House want an end to bomb outrages and murders throughout the United Kingdom. That is what we are working for. Although there is not as much violence and thuggery as there once was, we want them to end and we recognise that punishment beatings and knee-cappings are unacceptable. No Member of the


House accepts that such actions can be called community policing. They should be known as what they are—vicious, fascist gangsterism. They must end. Arms inspections are not in themselves sufficient; ultimately, they must lead to the total disuse and decommissioning of arms. That is the context in which we should consider an accommodation over flags.
Last week, I was in Canada with other members of my Select Committee, which is why I am wearing a Union jack and maple leaf badge on my lapel. I celebrated my birthday exactly a week ago and attended a birthday party at which the Union flag flew next to the green, white and orange tricolour. At the risk of antagonising the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) even more than did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in a place of superiority over all was a blue flag with gold stars. I happen to share a birthday with the European Union, which was celebrating its 50th. I draw a veil of silence over which birthday I was celebrating.
I hope that a time may yet come when the Union flag can fly alongside the Irish tricolour or the flag of any other EU member—in Northern Ireland as easily as anywhere else—without inflaming bitterness and unhappiness. I take the points made by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) but, until that time, it is perfectly sensible for the Assembly to seek accommodations on such matters in the first instance and it is totally right for my right hon. Friend to have the capacity to mediate where that cannot be achieved.
Tragically, many lives have been lost in Northern Ireland. Flags can be symbols of honour for lives lost, and that is the basis of battle honours, but there is a far better memorial for those who have lost their lives in Northern Ireland: pursuing the dangerous process of building peace—however difficult, tawdry and imperfect that may be—and ending the carnage and the needless sacrifice of innocent lives. I hope that the order can contribute to that purpose.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I support what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) said about the fascist thugs who continue to perpetrate outrages in Northern Ireland, but I say to him that I am glad that every person who watched a television programme on Sunday last saw a former member of the Executive, Mr. McGuinness, make it clear that he would not appeal to people who know those who are guilty of the crime of Omagh to give their information to the police. When a so-called Minister in a so-called democratic Government in this United Kingdom says in public that he would not encourage people who knew about such a diabolical outrage and such diabolical terrorism to go to the police, we realise what is at the heart of these divisions. They are not minor divisions; they are very major divisions.
The IRA made a statement, part of which has been given very little publicity, in which it forthrightly told us what it saw as the root causes of the troubles in Northern Ireland. First, there was the claim of this United Kingdom Government to hold sway in part of Ireland. Secondly, there was the partitioning of Ireland. Thirdly, there was the right of self-determination.
We have been told from the Dispatch Box that all who took up the agreement believed that the right of self-determination was vested in the people of Northern Ireland alone—that it was for them alone to decide their destiny. But here we have the IRA saying that that is not so: that one of the root causes that must be eliminated is anyone saying that Ireland as a whole has not the right to decide the destiny of the whole island, and therefore the destiny of the people of Northern Ireland.
The last point consisted of the IRA's wrongful accusation about the way in which republicans are treated under the law in Northern Ireland. Well, Northern Ireland people have not been governed in Northern Ireland for a very long time, so that is a charge against successive British Governments.
Those, then, are the root causes. The IRA went on to express its belief that, if what it was now saying was accepted, it would have a structure under which it could deliver to the people the removal of all those root causes.
Nothing will persuade the majority of people in Northern Ireland that they should join the Irish Republic. Nothing will persuade them that that partition will not remain; nothing will persuade them that they should give up their right of self-determination, and hand it over to a united Ireland; nothing will convince them that everything that is done in Northern Ireland is a strike against nationalist or republican people. Therefore, the structure that we are asked to accept by the Government is a structure to destroy the very things that the Government say will stay in place.
One of the questions put to the Secretary of State was the right question: why have the order at all? We are not talking about ordinary buildings, or about meeting-places where flags are displayed within. Many of us who go to European institutions know that the tricolour is displayed there, because Ireland is a member state of the European Union. We are talking about public buildings in part of the territory of the United Kingdom Government. Surely such buildings are different.
The other day, I asked the Prime Minister why the European flag was not flying on here, on the Houses of Parliament—here, in Westminster—for the same reason that it is allowed to fly in Scotland. I think the Secretary of State made a confession: it was through his wish that the flag was put up there. Well, the only laws that govern that are the laws of a commission, and that commission does not exist now. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) was a member of it, and this matter was argued on it; but it could not agree.
The Secretary of State tells us that he is not going to bother. Surely he should have been troubled about what was happening, because it was in the commission that governs the Parliament buildings that the arguments were put, and it could not reach a consensus. Why? Because IRA-Sinn Fein wanted the tricolour to fly at the same level as the flag of this United Kingdom.
That is the real issue that the Secretary of State must apply himself to, but that is not in the order; it is left out. He told us that he did not think that he would enter into that realm, but surely that is the realm where the difference started.
The difference was carried on, as has been said, when the two Sinn Fein members of the Government refused to fly the flag. I do not think that the Secretary of State has power under the order to command those two members to


put up a Union flag over their offices. Does he? Does he feel that, when he gets the order, if those two members say, "We will not fly the Union flag," he has the power to enforce the flying of the Union flag over those offices? He needs to come clean on that one and to tell the House whether that is what he thinks he has.
The order is to do with flags. It is not to do with the Union flag. Why, if it is in defence of one flag, are other flags mentioned? He needs to come straight with us tonight and to tell us because he knows perfectly well that the IRA will not give in on the matter. He knows that both Ministers, if they are returned, will not fly the flag. He knows that he does not have the power to make them fly the flag. What, then, will he do? What about the Parliament building, which has five commissioners who have already been divided on the issue, with no decision being taken?
Perhaps the Secretary of State would find out who commanded that the European flag should be put up in equality with the Union flag. I am a Member of the European Parliament, but I do not look at that Parliament as being equal with this House or with this kingdom. We are not part of a European super-state yet—please God, we never will be—but what I am saying is that that flag should not have been put up there. The Secretary of State is solely responsible at this moment for that flag, and he tells us that he had nothing to do with it. He needs to come clean.
Those who have foolishly negotiated with terrorists are to blame for the mess that they are in. They cannot negotiate with IRA terrorists or other terrorists and think that they will get democratic attitudes from them because those terrorists are determined that they will not bow and kneel to democracy. They are dealing not with people who will be reasonable, but with people who will forward the republican agenda. By their actions, they have made real, true and just peace less likely than ever before. Negotiating with them gives them legitimacy. People think, "They have been in government. They must be democrats," but they are not. One of them, as I have mentioned, told the world, "If people knew who did the Omagh bombings, I would not be calling on them to go to the police." Where else would they go?
Think of the atrocities of Omagh. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, who has responsibility for the victims, is sitting on the Front Bench. He knows what happened in Omagh. It is dreadful to think that a Minister in Northern Ireland is saying publicly, "I will not call on anyone who has information to go to the police." How else can the people who did that awful act be brought to justice? Those are the issues that the House should be aware of.
In bringing forward this legislation, the Government play entirely into the hands of terrorists. It is the legislation that they want. They are quite happy. When there is an issue about the flag, it will be made a major issue. As I have said, the Secretary of State will not be able to make them do anything. In Northern Ireland, we have flags flying everywhere by default around the area where the new markets have been formed. There is a tricolour on perhaps every pole. If one says anything about it to police, they say, "We cannot interfere with it. There would be trouble." What are we going to do? What is the Secretary of State going to do?

Mr. Öpik: I have an Estonian background, and the Estonian flag means a lot to me, although I respect the

tradition and culture in which I have grown up—including the Union jack. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the position of those who support the case for flying the tricolour is nevertheless respectable? Regardless of whether he agrees with their position, surely, from a human perspective, he understands why they set such store in a flag.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am talking not about people flying flags—that is nothing to do with this—but about flags on public, Government buildings. Would the hon. Gentleman debate in the House if someone moved a motion that a foreign flag should fly on Government buildings here?

Mr. Öpik: I would if it were an Estonian one.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I certainly look forward to seeing in the hon. Gentleman's constituency a motion in his name saying that that is what he wants. I know rightly that that is not what he wants, and that he would not even sponsor such a suggestion. We are dealing with Government property and with public buildings.
Public buildings are defined as those in which the majority of people are civil servants. A majority of people in the Stormont building are not civil servants, but staff members of the Assembly. They are employed by the Assembly. The Assembly even considered a rule that they would not be civil servants, but direct employees of the Assembly. The particular order that we are debating is therefore not even clear in its definition of a public building.
We are addressing the issue of what flag flies on a public building, and who commands that the flag should be flown there. If people want to put up tricolours and fly them, that is their business, but they should do it in keeping with the law. If one were to put up a Union jack in an area of Belfast where it was likely to cause a breach of the peace, it would be taken down by police. However, they are not so ready to take down tricolours in predominantly Unionist areas. Those are the facts of life.
What can we expect from a Secretary of State who believes, as he does, that he has to refer to the agreement when he addresses this particular issue? The agreement talks about parity of esteem, but what is parity of esteem? Is it giving equal esteem to the two flags? If so, and if that is what the agreement meant, of course I can understand IRA men arguing that the flag should fly along with the Union jack. However, I do not think that any Member of this House believes that the Secretary of State, when he looks at the agreement and sees "parity of esteem," must immediately say, "Yes, both flags must fly." But that is how those men have interpreted the phrase's meaning, and that is what they will continually fight for.
There will be fights. Does the Secretary of State really think that, because he is the final arbiter, there will be no rows over this matter? Does he really think that all will be lovely in the garden? It will not be, and the House should know that.
The order will enable the Secretary of State, if he so desires, to prevent the flying of the national flag on Government buildings in Northern Ireland. He can say, "I am dealing with flags, and the Union flag is not to be flown here." However, he will have no right to direct a


Minister to refuse to fly the national flag. The Secretary of State has got to come to a decision about what he is going to do and what concessions he will make.
It is all right for the Secretary of State to say today, "There are really no concessions to be made. There is no road to a united Ireland. There is nothing really happening. All in the garden is wonderful." All in the garden is not wonderful. We have today's debate in the House on what national flag should fly over Government buildings. The fact that we have to discuss the issue shows that all is not well. The issue was supposed to be settled, but the Executive refused to deal with it, because some people thought that there would be such a hullabaloo that the Executive could not keep together. I trust that the Secretary of State will state unequivocally that there is only one flag that should fly on public buildings and that is the flag of this nation.

Mr. Robert McCartney: It is evident from some of the speeches that have been made tonight that the true significance of the symbolism of the flag in Northern Ireland has been misinterpreted. In Surrey or Cardiff or many other places, the flag is taken for granted, just as constitutional rights are taken for granted. The citizens of those places know that their British citizenship will never be called into question. Only in those areas of the United Kingdom where there is a real fear and appreciation that British citizenship is conditional is an extra importance attached to symbols.
The Secretary of State suggested that there had been a tremendous breakthrough, but it is abundantly clear from the opening paragraph of the Provisional IRA's statement that there will be no lasting peace in Northern Ireland until the basic causes of the conflict are removed. That means the end of partition, the end of the British claim to part of Ireland and self-determination on an all-Ireland basis. The first paragraph of that much-heralded breakthrough says specifically that there will be no lasting peace until partition and the British presence are removed.
The next paragraph makes it clear what the Provisional IRA considers to be the true import of the Belfast agreement. If the agreement is fully implemented according to their Provisional IRA's specification, it will provide a political context in an enduring peace process that will give the potential for meeting all its objectives. If it does not provide that potential, there will be no lasting peace and the Provisional IRA will have recourse to its weapons, which it has not and will not put beyond use.
What significance does that have for flags? The pro-Union people of Northern Ireland have seen their Britishness and their position in the United Kingdom as British citizens constantly eroded. The Royal Ulster Constabulary's name is to be changed. Why? Because the word "royal" is an indication of its Britishness. Even though the crown in the RUC's insignia is coupled with the harp and the shamrock, it will be removed because it is deemed unsuitable. It is a British symbol. The royal coat of arms has traditionally been set above a presiding judge. It will be removed because it is said that it in some way intimidates litigants or causes them to be unhappy. I have practised in Northern Ireland courts for 40 years and

represented all shades of opinion, all denominations and all political allegiances. I have never heard a single client make such a suggestion. Nevertheless, the insignia must be removed. The Minister for External Affairs, Mr. Cowen, has made it abundantly clear that all the symbols of Britishness in Northern Ireland must go. The pro-Union people have become increasingly conscious of the importance of their symbols, because they have become increasingly conscious of the substance that those symbols represent being removed.
I am sorry to say that I view the order as a piece of political expediency. It was evident that the issue of the flag would be a major obstruction to the new seismic shift—the conditional offer from the IRA that if the process delivers Irish unity it will withhold the use of its arms, but will not dispense with their availability. The truth is that the issue of the flag, like the suspension that will be put on the determination of the RUC name, will be put on hold to lull Unionists into a false sense of security that something may yet happen that will preserve their symbols.
Under the order, it is left to the discretion of the Secretary of State to decide. On what principles will he decide? If the principle of consent means what it is declared to mean—that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom until such time as a majority decide otherwise—where is the problem? If we are part of the United Kingdom, we are entitled to fly the flag on public buildings on such occasions as is done in other parts of the United Kingdom. That being the case, what need is there for a devolved Assembly, which derives all its powers from the constitutional rights vested in this Parliament, to decide what is a constitutional issue? The Secretary of State need simply state that he has decided. There need be no consultation. He should say, "This is a constitutional matter. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. I, in discharge of my constitutional obligation, declare that the flag of the United Kingdom, and that flag alone, will fly on the public buildings of Northern Ireland in the same way as it flies on the public buildings of Canterbury or Salford."
There is no need for the order unless it is a political expedient, designed purely to put on the long finger what will be equally divisive. At great length, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) detailed all the mischiefs that will arise from this proposal. They were amplified by the contribution from the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). Those mischiefs are real and they will occur, but they could be knocked out in one stroke by the Secretary of State acknowledging the real meaning of the principle of consent, which he alleges is in force, and acting upon it. The rest is mere surplusage, which will create more mischief than it was designed to remove.
The Secretary of State should reflect on what has been said tonight because, as Dr. Faust found, there is a moment of reckoning, when the Mephistopheles of making this discretionary decision will return and will knock on the door of the Secretary of State—or, possibly, his successor—and say, "Now is the moment of truth, what are you going to do?" At that time, it may not matter for the people of Northern Ireland, but it will be another stain on the integrity of this House.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I shall be very brief. Of course, there can be no question but that it is the civic duty of any person with information about the Omagh bombings, or any other atrocity, to give that information to the proper authorities.
Two principles are involved in the discussion of the order: we must stick to the terms of the Good Friday agreement, and we must stick to the principles of devolution. The order is sensible because it does not say that the Secretary of State will take over and make a decision that the Northern Ireland Assembly has been unable to make. Rather, the order makes it clear that the Secretary of State would regulate the flying of flags only after the Executive Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly had failed to reach agreement. The order therefore provides an opportunity for the Assembly to reach that agreement.
I accept that that is a difficult proposition, but it is safe to predict that the Assembly will encounter many other difficult decisions. Its members will simply have to learn to work together and to find solutions with which at least the majority of the population—and preferably everyone—can manage to live. It is true that the SDLP will be put in a difficult position, but other elected members of the Assembly will be in difficult positions in other contexts as the months and years pass.
Finally, if members of the Assembly cannot manage to work through a problem such as this, what hope is there that they will come to sensible decisions on bread-and-butter issues such as housing, health, education, and so on, which affect all the people of Northern Ireland? Let us hope for some common sense in this matter. We must realise that no one has it easy in the context of Northern Ireland.

Mr. William Cash: I read this weasel order with great sadness. Paragraph (3)(1) states:
The Secretary of State may make regulations regulating the flying of flags at government buildings.
Leaving aside the fact that the word "buildings" has been misspelled, that paragraph makes one wonder to what body the word "government" refers. If the order is needed at all, to what "government" will it apply?
The short answer is that there is complete ambivalence in the mind of the Secretary of State, who has no answer to the question for reasons that I shall explain to the House.
Paragraph (4)(2) states:
The Assembly shall, within such period as the Secretary of State may specify, report to the Secretary of State the views expressed in the Assembly.
In other words, the Assembly will merely go through the motions of reporting. Paragraph (4)(3) provides that the Secretary of State "shall consider any report", but what does that mean? It means that he will think about a report. There is no need for him to make a decision, as he is merely under a requirement to "consider" any report.
The crucial point arises in paragraph (4)(4), which states:
In exercising his powers under Article 3 the Secretary of State shall have regard to the Belfast Agreement.
It was on the point of "shall have regard" that I intervened on the Secretary of State earlier.
Some of us have some small experience of looking at the nuts and bolts of legislation. This order will have the force of law when the House agrees it tonight, as will no doubt happen, yet the Secretary of State will not have to comply with the Belfast agreement, only "have regard to" it.
I assure the House that the Secretary of State, and those who drafted the order, know exactly what the words "have regard to" mean.
This is extremely difficult territory. I do not accept that the Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) or any others in the House do not realise exactly what the order involves. To put up a flag on a Government building, in terms of regulating the flying of flags on Government buildings, is not merely a symbolic act, but a declaration of the constitutional status of that Government building. According to one newspaper report today, the Union jack is apparently not flown on our embassy in France. It is an extraordinary state of affairs.
I have no objection to people wanting to declare their allegiance, but I want to know what their allegiance is. The order gives no one any confidence about the continuation of the flag that represents the constitutional status of the Government of the United Kingdom, with respect to Government buildings, in this House.
I say to the Secretary of State that I am extremely disappointed at the order, as I am with others in the House. It is a sell-out, and the Secretary of State knows that it is a sell-out. I have got used to sell-outs in relation to the United Kingdom with regard to a number of treaties that have been passed in the House. I need say no more, because everybody knows what I am talking about. [Laughter.]
Just as other Governments are created, parallel to and absorbing the Government of the United Kingdom in respect of this Parliament, so, with respect to Northern Ireland, there is the gradual absorption—some may think imperceptible—which is none the less relentless, through the continuing diminution, reduction and assimilation, provided by orders of this kind, of the government of the people of Northern Ireland into another constitutional status.
The Secretary of State knows this, because nobody with half a wit could fail to know it. It is very simple; it is going on. All the talk about the consent of the people of Northern Ireland will mean nothing when, bit by bit, gradually, by absorption, the government of the people of Northern Ireland is subsumed by orders of this kind.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) talked about difficult territory. The implementation of devolution puts


us into difficult territory, because it is new territory for many of us. The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) talked about the erosion of the citizenship of pro-Union citizens in Northern Ireland. He was, if I may say so, using extreme language.
We must remember that the principle of consent is the linchpin of the establishment of democracy and the Assembly in Northern Ireland. Whatever the hon. and learned Gentleman may say, that holds fast, just as it holds fast for Scotland. If a majority of the people of Scotland said that they wanted independence, this or any future Government would have to accept the will of the people. The principle of consent is very important. At least the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) emphasised the importance of the principle of consent in his opening remarks in what was, for him, quite a brief speech. We all share his revulsion for those who commit murderous acts of terrorism. We also share his revulsion for those who acquiesce in such acts of terrorism. It must be exceedingly difficult to sit down in a newly constituted Assembly with the apologists for such people—on both sides of the fence, incidentally. That cannot be easy for hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is in every sense difficult territory. But at least these people are in a democratically elected Assembly.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) talked about custom and practice determining the question of the flying of the flag. Perhaps he will allow me to be facetious for a moment. The only time I see the two flags being waved almost side by side is at Ibrox or Parkhead when Celtic are playing Rangers. That is when we see it in Scotland.
The right hon. Gentleman says that the flying of the flag of the state should be a reserved matter and that this is a deficiency in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I disagree wholeheartedly, because such a matter should be left to the devolved Assembly or legislature. I must admit that even though I took part in—

Mr. Grieve: rose—

Dr. Godman: I do not have time to give way.
Although I took part in most of the debates on the Scotland Act 1998, I cannot remember whether the flying of the flag is a matter devolved to Scotland. [Interruption.] I learn that it is a devolved matter. I have visited the Scottish Parliament on a number of occasions, and I know one of its Members quite well, but I cannot remember whether I saw the saltire the last time I was there. We have people in Scotland who would like to see the saltire flying there, at the parliament of an independent Scotland.

Mr. Grieve: rose—

Dr. Godman: Time is against me. The hon. Gentleman will have to accept my apologies for not giving way.
I wish to tell the right hon. Member for Upper Bann that I think tonight's debate is a precursor of a perhaps much livelier debate on a Bill that will come before us in the near future.
I also disagree with the right hon. Gentleman on police reform. If I had the power with regard to the design of a new police uniform, which is badly needed, I would change the colour from green to blue. Saying that may lose me a few votes among some of my Celtic supporters, but I believe that blue, not green, is the colour of a police uniform. However, I will not go down that road.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the order is needed. The Union is strong. The Northern Ireland people are, in every sense of the word, citizens of this United Kingdom, but I have to tell right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that it is a Union that is changing quite dramatically. The Union to which some of them pay such undying allegiance has largely disappeared, with devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I disagree fundamentally with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. As my right hon. Friend said, the Union flag remains the flag of the United Kingdom, and that is based upon the principle of consent. That must be determined by the representatives in the Assembly. If they fail to come to an acceptable compromise, I can well understand why my right hon. Friend feels that he needs the power to step in and sort things out, but it is better that the MLAs determine this than that we do it here in London.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 240, Noes 8.

Division No. 198]
[11.55 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Corston, Jean


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cotter, Brian


Allen, Graham
Cousins, Jim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cranston, Ross


Austin, John
Crausby, David


Barnes, Harry
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Barron, Kevin
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cummings, John


Bennett, Andrew F
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Benton, Joe
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Best, Harold
Dalyell, Tam


Betts, Clive
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Blackman, Liz
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Blizzard, Bob
Davidson, Ian


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Day, Stephen


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Browne, Desmond
Dobbin, Jim


Burden, Richard
Doran, Frank


Burgon, Colin
Dowd, Jim


Butler, Mrs Christine
Drew, David


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)



Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Cann, Jamie
Efford, Clive


Caplin, Ivor
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Casale, Roger
Etherington, Bill


Caton, Martin
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Flint, Caroline


Chidgey, David
Flynn, Paul


Clapham, Michael
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Fyfe, Maria


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Gardiner, Barry


Clelland, David
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Coaker, Vernon
Gerrard, Neil


Coffey, Ms Ann
Gibson, Dr Ian


Colman, Tony
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Connarty, Michael
Godman, Dr Norman A


Corbyn, Jeremy
Golding, Mrs Llin






Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Grieve, Dominic
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McIsaac, Shona


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Grogan, John
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McNulty, Tony


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
McWalter, Tony


Healey, John
McWilliam, John


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mallaber, Judy


Hepburn, Stephen
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Heppell, John
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hesford, Stephen
Martlew, Eric


Hinchliffe, David
Maxton, John


Hope, Phil
Meale, Alan


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hoyle, Lindsay
Miller, Andrew


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Moffatt, Laura


Humble, Mrs Joan
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hutton, John
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Mountford, Kali


Illsley, Eric
Mullin, Chris


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jamieson, David
Norris, Dan


Jenkins, Brian
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)



O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Olner, Bill


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Öpik, Lembit


Keeble, Ms Sally
Organ, Mrs Diana


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Kemp, Fraser
Palmer, Dr Nick


Kidney, David
Pearson, Ian


Kilfoyle, Peter
Pickthall, Colin


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Pike, Peter L


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Plaskitt, James


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Pollard, Kerry


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Pond, Chris


Laxton, Bob
Pope, Greg


Lepper, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Leslie, Christopher
Primarolo, Dawn


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Prosser, Gwyn


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Purchase, Ken


Luff, Peter
Quinn, Lawrie


McAvoy, Thomas
Rapson, Syd


McCabe, Steve
Rendel, David


Macdonald, Calum
Rooney, Terry


McDonnell, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McFall, John
Roy, Frank





Ruane, Chris
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Timms, Stephen


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Tipping, Paddy


Ryan, Ms Joan
Todd, Mark


Savidge, Malcolm
Touhig, Don


Sawford, Phil
Trickett, Jon


Sedgemore, Brian
Truswell, Paul


Shipley, Ms Debra
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Singh, Marsha
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Skinner, Dennis
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Wareing, Robert N



Watts, David


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
White, Brian


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)



Southworth, Ms Helen
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Steinberg, Gerry
Winnick, David


Stevenson, George
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wood, Mike


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Woolas, Phil


Stringer, Graham
Worthington, Tony


Stunell, Andrew
Wray, James


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)



Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Wyatt, Derek


Taylor, David (NW Leics)



Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Mike Hall and


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.


NOES


Beggs, Roy
Swayne, Desmond


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


McCartney, Robert (N Down)



Paisley, Rev Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


Robertson, Laurence
Mr. William Cash and


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Rev. Martin Smyth.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 15th May, be approved.

Northern Ireland (Decommissioning)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) (No. 2) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.
The order appoints 21 May 2001 as the date before which the amnesty period identified in a non-statutory decommissioning scheme must end. The amnesty period is the time during which firearms, ammunition and explosives can be decommissioned in accordance with the scheme, thereby attracting both the amnesty and prohibitions on evidential use and forensic testing of decommissioned items provided by the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997.
Section 2 of the Act requires that a scheme must set out the amnesty period and that it must end before 27 February 1998—the first anniversary of the Act's passing—unless the Secretary of State, by order, appoints a later day. Three such orders have already been made. Under that made in February this year, the amnesty period will expire at midnight on 22 May.
The purpose of this order is to extend that period until midnight on 20 May next year. When I last spoke to the House on this subject, three months ago, to seek approval for a further extension of the amnesty period, the political process had just experienced a significant setback. As a result of the lack of substantive progress on decommissioning and consequent decline in confidence in the institutions, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had no option but to suspend the Assembly and Executive on 11 February.
However, if a week is a long time in politics, three months is almost an eternity. Those three months have involved a great deal of hard work on the part of many people, not least the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), as a result of which the political climate is now vastly improved. The details of those improvements were brought to the attention of the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last week, and of course were touched upon in the previous debate.
However, it is appropriate in the context of the order before us today to draw attention once again to the significance of the statement issued by the IRA last week. I believe that it holds out the very real prospect of progress on decommissioning. In its statement the IRA says that
the IRA leadership will initiate a process that will completely and verifiably put IRA arms beyond use.
That is the first time that it has made such an undertaking. It is making its arms dumps available to outside inspectors. That is unprecedented, and it makes this order even more important.
Without the extension, progress on decommissioning will simply not be possible, whatever commitments are made by the IRA or any other paramilitary organisation. To continue to fulfil our commitments under the agreement, it is essential that we extend, through the order, the period during which an amnesty is provided in respect of offences that might otherwise be committed in the course of decommissioning in accordance with a decommissioning scheme.
The confidence-building measure announced by the IRA last week is the first step in a process that will lead to arms being placed completely and verifiably beyond use. The IRA will re-engage with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning to take that forward. To quote from the IRA's statement again, it said:
We will resume contact with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning and enter into further discussions with the commission on the basis of the IRA leadership's commitment to resolving the issue of arms.
That is what the decommissioning Act required. Precisely how and when that should take place is a matter for the IICD.
However, the British and Irish Governments asked the IICD, as set out in a joint statement of 5 May, to consider whether there are other possible decommissioning schemes that would offer it greater scope to discharge its basic mandate effectively. I should emphasise that that does not in any way affect the commission's basic mandate, including the definition of decommissioning under which it operates. In short, that is not a departure from the decommissioning Act. Indeed, it is wholly consistent and compatible with what was envisaged under the Act. I shall briefly expand on that point.
The decommissioning Act, which was passed under the previous Government, set out four options for decommissioning arms and provided for more to be created if necessary. That Act also says, in effect, that arms can be destroyed or made permanently inaccessible or permanently unusable. If other schemes are proposed to or conceived by the IICD, the commission would be required to consult the two Governments. If the two Governments were satisfied with the proposals, they would introduce the necessary schemes in each of the two jurisdictions.
The understanding is that the confidence-building measure will involve the securing of arms in separate dumps, which will be inspected by independent third parties: former President of Finland, Martti Ahtisaari and Cyril Ramaphosa, former general secretary of the African National Congress, who will of course report to the IICD. The Government are obviously most grateful to those distinguished figures for taking on that crucial task.
The two inspectors visited London and Belfast yesterday for an initial round of discussions. In Belfast, they met the IICD to discuss how they will be taking forward their important roles. The Government have every confidence that they will carry out their task with the highest standard of professionalism, ability and integrity. Their visit indicates the speed with which we are moving forward. It also demonstrates the real nature of what has been offered by the IRA. We are no longer dealing in words or intentions, but in actions that represent real progress.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already informed the House, we believe that those developments are hugely significant. We are confident that we should be able to restore devolved government to Northern Ireland on a lasting basis. This Government are committed to both devolution and decommissioning. The order is essential to ensure the conditions to make decommissioning happen. I commend it to the House.

Mr. John M. Taylor: After the 23rd of this month, the amnesty for decommissioning will come to an end, and with it, of course, any facilitation of decommissioning or surrendering of weapons. We on the Opposition Benches have always taken a position supportive of the Belfast agreement in its entirety. Decommissioning remains an integral part of that agreement, although I am bound to say that in more recent exchanges I have heard the word "deactivation" spoken of with approval by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and the Secretary of State. However, whether it is decommissioning or deactivation, it is an integral part of the Belfast agreement and we must continue to stand in earnest hope of it. That being so, we must allow the proposed extended amnesty. The official Opposition will support the Minister.

Mr. John McFall: I am delighted to support the order. On 6 May, for the first time, we had a statement from the IRA, not from Sinn Fein; that fact was recognised by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) when he spoke in the House last week. For the first time, the IRA is speaking on its own behalf, and it has said that it will put its arms beyond use.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State mentioned the 1997 Act, introduced by the previous Government. We have been talking about decommissioning for five years or more, and that talk has bedevilled the making of progress. Whatever we call it, we all want to ensure that the arms are put beyond use and lives are saved. With good will from all sides, the process with which the order deals will ensure that happens. That is why it should be welcomed.
I am especially pleased that the confidence-building measures include the recruitment of two distinguished international statesmen, Mr. Ahtisaari, the former president of Finland, and Cyril Ramaphosa. Those two individuals, especially the latter, have learned about conflict and conflict resolution in their own society. Conflict resolution worked with a conflict as deep and as widespread as the one in South Africa, and it will work in Northern Ireland.
These events take place against the background of the operation of the ceasefires declared in 1994. To put it bluntly, that has meant that, since 1994, hundreds of lives in Northern Ireland have been saved. There are people walking about in Northern Ireland today who would not be doing so had the ceasefires not been in place—that is reality. Everyone in the House should be saying three cheers for ceasefires—three cheers for ensuring that more of our citizens live a decent life and have a prosperous future. That is the sort of society we want and everyone entering the negotiations should have that goal in mind.
Whether or not we are of a cynical disposition, we should rejoice in the fact that lives have been saved. At the weekend, Martin McGuinness made a significant statement on the "Jonathan Dimbleby" programme. He said that, irrespective of whether or not the Executive was resumed, the arms verification process would continue. That is cause for optimism.
Sure, we have travelled a long road and, sure, there are people who remain cynical, but, as one who served for a short time as a Minister at the Northern Ireland Office, I

have witnessed the transformation of Northern Ireland's society. I know what the people of Northern Ireland want—they want the same things as the rest of the people in the United Kingdom want. They want good education facilities, good health services, and good prospects for themselves and for their families. That message was repeated daily in my ministerial briefings.
I conclude by mentioning Senator George Mitchell. In his autobiography, he said that he hoped one day to return to Northern Ireland with his young son, to traverse the hills and glens and, on a rainy day, to go to the Visitors Gallery in Stormont and from there watch the politicians of Northern Ireland debate the real issues of Northern Ireland. Those issues are the economy, agriculture, transport and health. The order contributes to the realisation of his vision, and I wish it well.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: It is not surprising that we are keeping the flag flying on decommissioning at such a late hour. We always seem to discuss such issues after midnight. However, consideration of the order is a source of encouragement, not least because of the statements that have come directly from the IRA. That is so significant. We are finally getting statements from the people who are in a position to fulfil the commitment to decommissioning. The quotation that was read out by the Minister, stating:
the IRA leadership will initiate a process that will completely and verifiably put IRA arms beyond use
is the crucial indication that we are moving forward from the deadlocks that we have experienced previously.
We welcome the order and congratulate the two Governments, as well as the political parties in Northern Ireland, on the progress made, particularly in the past couple of weeks. I especially welcome the statement from the IRA about putting the arms beyond use, because it is becoming less conditional. That is a significant step forward. In some ways, the IRA is moving in directions in which it seemed reluctant to move in 1999. It seems to be a firm commitment.
As the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) said, Martin McGuinness's statement on the "Jonathan Dimbleby" programme gives the indication that regardless of what else happens and what blockages occur, the IRA is serious about playing its part in the peace process.
It is good to welcome the former Secretary General of the African National Congress, Cyril Ramaphosa, and the former President of Finland, Martti Ahtisaari, to Northern Ireland. It is significant that that process is independent and that they will report to the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning.
The order is a little more realistic than the one that was passed in February. Given the amount of armaments involved, it will take time to put them beyond use, and considerable time to inspect the arms dumps and determine that they are secure.

Mr. Roy Beggs: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he not recognise that only the possibility of three dumps being supervised is on offer? We do not know how much will be in them, but many more will be unsupervised and accessible to the other elements that have broken away from the IRA to carry on their terrible deeds.

Mr.Öpik: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman is correct. There is always a level of risk. One of the crucial


points made in the earlier debate is that the risk must be balanced. There is no such thing as certainty in politics. At some point, one must say that the risk is sufficiently low to justify some degree of good faith from us in the Chamber.
All of us must make our call on whether the level of risk is sufficiently low to justify that faith. For me and for the Liberal Democrats and, I guess, for the Government, the risk is sufficiently small to justify our proceeding at this stage. History will prove us right or wrong. I believe that the greatest crime would be to impose barriers of uncertainty—barriers based on an assumption of failure. The Secretary of State has said many times that he does not plan for failure; he plans for success. This is one of the occasions when we must translate those words into action, which in my view means encouraging the process in Northern Ireland to go forward in the way that the order facilitates.
Most importantly, we must reciprocate the strong and clear statement expressed directly by the IRA that it does not intend to be a barrier to the peace process henceforth. That is a matter not of principle, but of judgment. My judgment is that we probably have enough assurances to take the IRA seriously.
On a related point, if only some dumps are inspected, the IRA and the splinter groups will have access to weapons. We have always known that. Even if every gun and bomb was decommissioned tomorrow, they could always buy more. Just as we all accepted that the previous order was based entirely on the importance of symbolism, which is strongly felt, it is incumbent on us to recognise that this order is based on symbolism as well, though obviously it relates to weapons rather than to flags.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we are discussing more than symbolism? We are considering reality. Arms in a dump, however often it is inspected, can potentially be used at some stage. A weapon therefore continues to be held over democratic politics. Such dumps are, in some sense, a form of blackmail.

Mr.Öpik: Perhaps in some sense, but that is a melodramatic interpretation of a rather stable situation. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to believe that the risk is too great to support the order, but I hope that most hon. Members are satisfied that the clear, unequivocal statements of the IRA are genuine and can be accepted.
In a recent debate on Northern Ireland, I said that our discussions, comments and decisions in the House are not passive; they directly influence the process. If we take the right action here, the right outcome is more likely.
The process is about arresting not those who hold guns, but violence. We have held that debate on previous occasions when we discussed the amnesty. We are beginning to progress from a rather narrow definition of decommissioning to a more balanced and reasonable definition of deactivation. It is not decommissioning that matters, but the fact that the guns and bombs are no longer used.
It is important that people do not get killed for a cause in Northern Ireland. That can be achieved now; violence can be replaced by political debate. I believe that if we approve the order tonight, we effectively rubber-stamp another year of peace in the Province.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) said that decommissioning had been a troublesome word in the past five years. It is troublesome because decommissioning, or disarmament, has not been achieved, not because the need for it and its verification does not exist. I am pleased that the decommissioning commission, headed by General de Chastelain and his two colleagues, will be kept in place for a further year. That is important for several reasons.
First, whether or not we want to make perverse political points, it is generally acknowledged that the IRA had no intention of rolling over, putting its feet and arms in the air and allowing us to tickle its belly. It intended to maintain its stance of "not a single rusty bullet" for as long as it was viable in its terms. However, over the years that we have worked to move Northern Ireland to more peaceful times and to create a democratic process, with which Northern Irish society can identify, there has been a general realisation—it has not totally gripped the IRA or loyalist paramilitaries—that illegal guns and organisations cannot exist side by side with true democracy and peace. That is the crux of the matter.
Whether it is acknowledged or not, we have been assisted by the national and international reiteration of that point of view. It is all very well to be sceptical about a president here, a past president there or a general somewhere else, but that reiteration has had an overall impact throughout the island of Ireland. People have come to the point of view that we advocated five, six, seven or eight years ago: disarmament and the verification of that process have to take place.
I shall not be terribly disturbed if somebody plucks a euphemism from the air and puts it in place of my term—disarmament—and my requirement for verification, nor shall I worry about what term is used. I shall not worry as long as the process moves forward. I have an expectation that arises from the unique statement by P. O'Neill, although I do not know whether I am right to do so. Perhaps the Secretary of State or the Minister can tell me. The IRA referred not to some of its arms, but to "our" arms. I expect that to mean all its arms—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) makes a remark from a sedentary position. I shall give way if he wishes.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If the hon. Gentleman believes that the IRA will make all its arms available for inspection, he is living in cloud cuckoo land. I did use another word, which was fool.

Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman abuses me, but I shall not react to that. Some people probably considered me to be a fool during the years in which I put on a uniform and faced up to terrorists. Perhaps people such as me were also considered to be fools because we faced up to the reality of death for the benefit of society, our children and their future.
I was referring not to what I believe the IRA will do, but to what I would expect it to do on the basis of the statement. I expect—I require, if that pleases the hon. Member for Macclesfield more—"our" arms to mean all its arms. Mr. Ahtisaari and Mr. Ramaphosa must be able to inspect the dumps in which those arms lay. The fact that P. O'Neill has drawn those two people into the


equation leaves the IRA open to criticism. Let us forget its terrorism for a moment. The whole raison d'être of its members as republicans—people with a political aspiration—would be held up to international ridicule if this step forward, and it is only a step, was seen to be a cod or a deceit. By continuing the international commission's work, the House will say that, ultimately, we require nothing short of decommissioning, or disarmament as I like to call it.
If the interim confidence-building measure is to have any meaning for us, Mr. Ahtisaari and Mr. Ramaphosa must have access to the sort of information held by the commission. We are assured by General de Chastelain that they will have the co-operation of the commission on one issue in particular: the quantity and type of weapons. How can the verification of the two inspectors have any meaning if they do not understand the volume, or quantity, of arms that they must inspect?
I ask the Secretary of State and the Minister to ensure that one thing happens that did not happen in January. When reports are presented, Mr. Ahtisaari and Mr. Ramaphosa will present a report to the Governments, through the commission, and the commission will present reports to the Governments. Will the Minister reassure me that there will not be a hiatus such as the one that we saw in January, when a report was suppressed and the commission's credibility was diminished—I hope only temporarily—because the Government had suppressed that report?

Mr. Ingram: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks—the assurance that was given to his right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) in a letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful to the Minister. I was aware of that letter, but I wanted it to be put on the record.
I have never expected us to achieve all that we hope to achieve—to put right every wrong and every injustice that has occurred. How can we put right some of the injustices of the past 30 years? I believe, however, that we can at least impose such an obligation, and create such an atmosphere among the vast majority of people—with the support of the nation and the international community—that sooner or later we will achieve the ultimate objective. Gone are the days, I want to believe, when "Not a single rusty bullet" was what we heard in response to the requirement of our society that illegal weapons and illegal organisations should become a thing of the past.

Mr. Harry Barnes: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who made an important speech. Unusually, I wish that he had spoken for longer in the same vein. He often makes lengthy speeches when I think that he should be more succinct. The hon. Gentleman was clearly not being soft on the IRA, but wanted to use, extend and develop the current position to secure the objective that he had had all the time.
I appreciate that aspects of Unionism will involve reservations and concerns about the current situation. After all, decommissioning was supposed to have happened by about now—the complete disarmament

referred to by the hon. Gentleman. Instead of that, however, at the time by which that should have been achieved the re-establishment of the Executive is taking place. That is not to say that I am against the re-establishment of the Executive, but it was a demand made when the Executive was suspended, particularly by Sinn Fein. Therefore, in a sense Sinn Fein has got the Executive going at a time when complete decommissioning should have taken place.
The other thing that must worry Unionists is that we are extending the order. They have been through that on many occasions in the past: we had direct rule after direct rule extended year by year. There is always something unsatisfactory about measures of that nature, but the order, like the suspension of the Executive, is something that I support entirely. Those measures seem to have been entirely essential in the circumstances that surrounded them. They were essential both for the peace process to take place and to go forward.
I disagreed with one aspect of what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) said about what would happen if arms were finally put out of use. He believed that, to some extent, it was a symbolic move that had to take place. It is much more significant than that. Once numbers of arms are put beyond use and destroyed, the situation of the IRA will be entirely different.
It is not a matter of the IRA just going around and buying a few more guns to replace those weapons. It must be mobilised and organised to do that. How would it do it? Extra finances might need to be raised. Its members would be told to rob more banks. They would say, "What are you telling us to do? To rob more banks after you have just given the guns away, which now need to be replaced?" Therefore, I think that the move is of great practical significance. Getting to a situation where weapons begin to be out of use, to be controlled and to be contained is of significance to the whole psychology and attitude of the IRA.
Therefore, the IRA statement is of deep significance to that organisation. It is an admission that the arms struggle is to end. It should have gone further; it will need to do so. It will need to be pressed and pushed, but a big, significant change has taken place. We must grab hold of it and seek to develop it. We need the loyalist paramilitary organisations to follow that particular path quite quickly—to follow at least the proposals that the IRA is putting forward. We need them to begin to go beyond that and even to talk about disbanding. That is the logic of the IRA putting arms out of use.
If a paramilitary organisation does not have its arms to draw on, it is changed entirely. Will it change into something else, or will it disappear? It should disappear. Then, if people want to get into the political process, they will do so through their political wing—within Sinn Fein—hopefully acting entirely legitimately and democratically, or getting used to acting legitimately and democratically, with a sea change over time in their approach and attitudes.
The dynamic of the inspection will be quite important. The reports that will be produced, the pressure that that will put on the IRA and, generally, on the development of the political process, is very important. The whole future really depends on the reports that are being produced and on related developments. The process takes on board and develops the bread-and-butter issues that are


important in Northern Ireland politics, and it will be bedded in as long as we have the reports confirming that arms are beyond use.
We are now within sight of fruition of the Belfast agreement—which is on track, despite the time—limit problems that I mentioned. However, we must always be alert to the fact that much more has to be done. We shall have to address the issues of intimidation, people being forced into exile and the need for the general disintegration of paramilitary activity, including the type of activity—in which it engages on estates—that can perhaps be characterised as IRA plc and from which it benefits financially very much.
There is also always the possibility of paramilitary splits. I hope that such splits will be made into ever smaller groups, over which the authorities can take control, and over which political control may be exercised by an Executive that is up and operating in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Peter Robinson: There are not many words in the order that we are considering, but regardless of how much we scrutinise those words, we will not see in them the real reason why the order has been introduced. It has been introduced because of the folly of those who told us that the Belfast agreement had within it a requirement to decommission. Among those people were the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), and no less a person than the Prime Minister. Both of them told the House and the people of Northern Ireland that there was an absolute requirement for decommissioning and that things would not happen unless decommissioning occurred. However, those things did happen.
Prisoners were let out of jail, but no decommissioning occurred. Police were put on the altar for destruction, but no decommissioning occurred. All-Ireland bodies with executive power were established, but no decommissioning occurred. The representatives of unrepentant and armed terrorism got into government, but no decommissioning occurred.
The date specified in the Belfast agreement envisaged the completion of decommissioning. Now, we are talking about extending that date without even having seen the start of decommissioning. The order therefore represents the folly of those who were suckered by the IRA's representatives into believing that, in exchange for the concessions that they made, they were going to get something in return.
Today, we have already heard in the House of the willingness of that same group of people to be suckered yet again—to delude themselves into believing that what the IRA has said amounts to decommissioning. It does not. There is nothing in the IRA statement that meets the terms of decommissioning as stated in the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997.
The 1997 Act required the destruction of weapons and—just as the Minister said—there are four ways of doing that. However, when he went further and gave an interpretation of that—that destruction includes making permanently inaccessible or permanently unusable—he should perhaps have paused a little longer at the word

"permanently", because it is absent from anything that is within the IRA statement. All it talks about is "putting beyond use"—but what does that mean? It is not interpreted in its statement. It has also not been interpreted by the representatives. However, people in this place feel themselves fit to interpret it as meaning decommissioning under the terms of the 1997 Act.
We might have thought that, with all the sorry experience that they have had of being made fools of by the IRA, those people would hold their tongues a little longer before preaching to the people of Northern Ireland that what they are now being offered by the IRA is anything close to decommissioning. It is not. Once again, the IRA is trying to put the issue on the long finger and get back to government, still perpetuating the illusion that somewhere down the line we may get decommissioning. After all this time, I would have thought that the House would look more carefully at the Act that it passed.
The weapons will be permanently inaccessible, but to whom? Inaccessible to the IRA, one might have answered a few weeks ago, but under the IRA's statement, its members are the only ones who will have access to their arms—they will not be inaccessible to the terrorists. The statement also says that the weapons will be permanently unusable, but unusable by whom? By the IRA, one might have said, but the IRA's members will be the only people who will be able to use them, if they so choose.
The so-called confidence-building measure involves allowing two individuals approved by the IRA to inspect some of its arms dumps. The intelligence services say that there are more than 20 major arms dumps and hundreds of arms hides for the more operational weapons. It is envisaged that the IRA will allow people to look at three of them—not even necessarily the three largest. Are the logistics of that inspection to be given to the international body? They will certainly not be given to the security forces. The fact that three of the IRA's arms dumps will be inspected by two of its friends is supposed to be a great confidence-building measure that will assure the Unionist community that these people are genuine. The House can be certain that that is what the IRA envisages by putting its weapons beyond use.
The Government and those who negotiated the Belfast agreement can no longer dangle in front of the people of Northern Ireland their claims of what they would get in return for their votes, because the community no longer believes them. The people have been fooled once, but they will not be fooled again.
Before the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), talked about a stable situation, he might have thought of all those who are still victims of the weapons that the IRA claim it is going to put beyond use. The situation is far from stable. Mr. McGuinness—an army council member of the Provisional IRA and a leading Sinn Fein negotiator—tells us that he is prepared to allow those who carried out the most dastardly event in terrorist history in Northern Ireland to get away with their crime. He has said that he does not recommend those people to give the Royal Ulster Constabulary any information that they have. We are supposed to put our trust in this person, who is a leading member of the IRA army council. On the basis of those who have spoken, that is what the House is asking us to do. The people of Northern Ireland, particularly the Unionist community, will not tolerate their representatives


accepting the word of IRA terrorists as bona fide or regarding them as capable of keeping the promises that they interpret them to have made.
The order would allow the Provisional IRA to string along the political process for a further year to get more concessions from the Government and from weak Unionists. I am glad that the overwhelming majority of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland is no longer suckered by the process or torn by those who invited them to embrace it.

Mr. Michael Connarty: I think that a short television programme of the previous three speeches should be shown to everyone in Britain and in the island of Ireland. I defer to many hon. Members in their knowledge of Northern Ireland, in their commitment to it and in their hard work on its behalf. Labour Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), have tried to untangle the difficulties of the situation, but the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) also demonstrated the extent of his strength of feeling and commitment, which have grown out of his long history of fighting terrorism in his part of the United Kingdom. He is clearly prepared to look forward to a better future and, little by little, to take some matters on trust—although obviously he will take what is said in the course of progress with large doses of salt and suspicion.
However, the House then heard the poisonous comments of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who said that the former President of Finland and the former ANC general secretary were two friends of the IRA. That was the level to which he fell, as a reading of his speech will show. The hon. Gentleman is so out of touch and full of bile that he has nothing to contribute to the debate any more.
I listened to what the hon. Gentleman said. It was the cheapest—

Mr. Peter Robinson: He spoke at an IRA rally.

Mr. Connarty: I have never spoken at any such rally. Does the hon. Gentleman want to intervene?

Mr. Robinson: I did not say that the hon. Gentleman spoke at an IRA rally. I said that Cyril Ramaphosa spoke at a Sinn Fein-IRA rally.

Mr. Connarty: Given Mr. Ramaphosa's background and the work that he has done in southern Africa—where reconciliation and peace have been the way forward out of the darkest times of apartheid—I am sure that he had much to say to the people who attended that rally. Perhaps what he said led them to make the statements that have been made in the past few days.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East has cheapened the debate by playing for votes. I was watching him as he spoke, and it was clear that he was not talking about the peace process. He was trying to win votes from the Ulster Unionist party, which enjoys the support of the vast majority of Unionists in Ulster. That sums up his view of what this debate has been about. He is interested only in cheap vote-getting. I hope that the people of Northern Ireland eject him from his seat for adopting that approach.
I hope that the order will be accepted without a Division, although I accept that that is unlikely, given the vote that was held on the previous order. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has often been said to work on the dark side of the political process, but I consider that he has been playing with the bright sciences of politics in working to achieve the geometrically possible, and vital, task of squaring the circle of the Northern Ireland dilemma.
I supported the Act that set up the Northern Ireland Assembly, but opposed any attempt to set timetables, on the ground that they were precipitate. When the Assembly came to be suspended, I opposed the Government as I considered that suspension to be a precipitate act. The Government believed that the suspension would have benefits for the internal processes of the Ulster Unionist party, which they considered to be necessary.
I thought that I was being consistent, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was being pragmatic. As a result of the suspension, we gained some space. The statement from the IRA is one of the most significant that has been made. People who refer to the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 as the position from which there must be no deviation may not feel that the IRA statement is significant enough, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire, who said that the significance lay in the fact that it was the IRA speaking.
In a meeting elsewhere in this building on the day when the 1997 Act was being debated, I accused Martin McGuinness of being a schizophrenic politician. I said that the position that he occupied meant that he could say, at one and the same time, "You're not talking about me because you're talking about the IRA", and, "You can't talk to me because you have to talk to the IRA—but the IRA says this, through my mouth." Now the IRA has said something in its own right. It has said that it will put its arms beyond use, completely and verifiably. The IRA has said that, not Sinn Fein. That is a new element in the debate.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the leading positions in Sinn Fein and the IRA are held by the same people? Mr. Adams, Mr. McGuinness and Mr. Pat Doherty, the vice-president of Sinn Fein, are all known and recognised by the security forces to be three of the seven-man IRA army council. So when Mr. McGuinness speaks, he is speaking as P. O'Neill.

Mr. Connarty: That is the hon. and learned Gentleman's view of the information that he has. Whether it is true or not, it is significant that, as long as the Sinn Fein leadership said that it could not speak for the IRA and the IRA would not speak directly, there could be no agreement between the IRA and the political process. The difference is that the rubicon has been crossed. It might turn out to be a risk taken by the IRA and the Sinn Fein leadership to move the process forward, which might lead to fragmentation. My worry about suspending the Assembly was that, if the fragmentation was not small, but if large parts of the IRA, with weapons, broke off and joined other organisations, the resulting internecine warfare would kill people in Northern Ireland. It would not simply be a question of the IRA versus the IRA, but would probably involve lots of innocent people. I hope


that that does not happen, but there is still a question over the political and military situation in Northern Ireland to be resolved.
I have no aim for Northern Ireland or southern Ireland in terms of whether they will end up being united or divided. I am a democrat. I spoke with the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone at the launch conference of the Labour group of the Ulster Unionist movement for people interested in getting social reform on to the agenda. The three elements discussed were demilitarisation, democracy and the rule of law. We are moving steadily towards those three objectives. They may not be recognisable by people who see the process in terms that can be defined only by a 1970 perspective, but they are emerging, bit by bit, in Northern Ireland.
I will fight for the right of the people of Northern Ireland always to remain within the Union of the United Kingdom if they so choose. In that way, I am a committed Unionist. I come from a Catholic and a nationalist background, but I am a democrat. That is the fundamental base.
We have to move through this period, and part of doing so is passing the order to extend the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 for another year and, I hope, for further years to come. Decommissioning is restated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State as making weapons permanently unusable. For me, that is what decommissioning is about. I saw the previous Government spike themselves on their interpretation of decommissioning as handing over weapons. When I heard the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Marjorie Mowlam), and the Prime Minister use the same terms in the early part of this Parliament. I thought that we would never be able to move beyond that impasse. I believe that we now have a formula that will move us through the impasse to a peaceful future.
I believe that the militarists' theory will rot on the vine, and that the guns will rust in the dumps. Extending the 1997 Act for a further year will give us time to watch that happen.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the opportunity of making a brief contribution to the debate. I understand the points made by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty).
There is one point that I should like to clarify, because it has come up several times. I refer to the comparison between Northern Ireland and South Africa. In South Africa, they were all South Africans. They are still having problems because they did not deal with the issue of weapons, and many folk, black and white, are suffering accordingly. I likewise understand something of the arguments of the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall).
We are happy that there are people living today who might not be living if the bombs had continued to go off. On the other hand, there are others not able to walk around freely in Northern Ireland because of the continued terrorist beatings, whether by loyalists or republicans, in which weapons have been used—not simply crowbars and baseball bats, but even guns. The

cries that I have heard from those within the nationalist community, as well as those within the loyalist or unionist community, are that we have to deal with that situation.
One of the things that amaze me, especially with regard to hon. Members from Scotland and others in the House, is that we rushed to take legal weapons away from people after a lunatic shot children in Dunblane, and yet we do not seem to have the same passion for removing weapons from terrorists who are defying the country and two Governments, as well as the American Government.
In that context, I was speaking this morning to one who has laboured consistently with victims and others within Northern Ireland, right across the divide. He reflected the very point that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) made tonight. He told me that people from the nationalist community, including leaders of that community, are saying clearly, without any equivocation, that we have been giving too much to the provos, without putting pressure on them.
I represent Belfast, South, where one of those who previously had been active in republican terrorism is now calling himself the Northern Ireland Human Rights Watch. He has stated—this has not been refuted—that, although republican terrorists and paramilitary groups have said that people will not co-operate with the police, and that that is why the people are turning to the local provos to implement their mob law, the bulk of those who have been accused of social misdeeds have already been dealt with by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. People have been going to the police on those issues, but the argument is still going on in loyalist and republican circles that the gunmen on both sides are seeking to dominate their communities.
When we are extending this amnesty for another year it is salutary to ask ourselves how many weapons have been handed in and destroyed or put out of use in the last two years. To the best of my knowledge, there has been only a handful, from the Loyalist Volunteer Force.
There have been references to cynicism. Cynics in Northern Ireland are saying that the loyalist paramilitaries are not prepared to bring their weapons for destruction because they do not have that many; they have spent most of the money from their rackets to live a high life. It must be recognised that at times what seems to be cynicism is not cynicism, but realism. Maybe sometimes the House needs a dose of realism before starting to go down roads of dreams or fancies.
There are those of us who want peace, but we will never have true peace as long as we continue to allow terrorists, of whatever hue, to run rings round democratic governments and put pressure on democratic Members.

Mr. David Winnick: I have always taken the view that more important than decommissioning was the political decision by the IRA that it could not achieve what it had set out to achieve—a united Ireland—through violence and terror. To me, that was the most crucial decision of all. I hope that there will be no reversal by the IRA.
Decommissioning is important. It is important to bring about in Northern Ireland a society in which arms are not in the possession of paramilitaries of any kind, be they


republicans or loyalists. The IRA statement is to be much welcomed; it is a step forward. Since the IRA ceasefire, Sinn Fein has said that it cannot speak for the IRA. Of course, we know that there is a close link between IRA and Sinn Fein, but IRA has spoken clearly. Whatever one might say about that organisation—I have never been reluctant to condemn its violence, as hon. Members will know—when it says that it will do something, it normally does so. So I have confidence that the IRA statement is genuine and that the IRA is willing go along the path that it has outlined. That is why I welcome the order.
Reference has been made to the fact that the IRA has not given up its basic objective. However, have we not always argued in this place that it is perfectly legitimate in Northern Ireland to campaign for a unitary state? People in Northern Ireland have as much right to do that as those who argue that Northern Ireland should be part of the United Kingdom. However, we have said that it is wrong to try to bring about a united Ireland through terror and violence. Parliament has been unanimous about that for more than 30 years. Despite all our differences on domestic issues, we have been unanimous that we would not give in to terror and violence, and we have not done so. That fact should always be borne in mind.
In a bitter and negative speech, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) demonstrated that, like his party, he is wholly opposed to the Belfast agreement. He is perfectly entitled to hold that view. However, when we listen to him, to the leader of his party, the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and to the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), we should bear in mind that they do not want the implementation of the agreement. They were against it from the beginning. They do not want an all-inclusive government in Northern Ireland; they believe that to be wrong and inappropriate.
However, we—the vast majority of Members—believe that, given the traditions of Northern Ireland, the best and most effective means for good government is to bring the two communities together. That is what the Belfast agreement is about. I want to see an end not only to the terror and violence, but to punishment beatings—to which my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) referred—whether carried out by republicans or loyalists. Such beatings are unacceptable on the mainland; they should be unacceptable in Northern Ireland. I hope there will be a decrease in, and then an end to, those beatings, which demonstrate such brutality and indifference to the rule of law.
I conclude my brief remarks by pointing out that, undoubtedly, a huge majority in Northern Ireland was for the Belfast agreement. If people on the mainland had had a vote on the Good Friday agreement—if there had been a referendum in this part of the United Kingdom—there would have been an even larger majority for its implementation than there was in the Irish Republic. That is the way forward in Northern Ireland. I hope that that will lead to a guaranteed peace, and that violence and terror will come to an end so that people in Northern Ireland can live the same sort of life as those of us on the mainland—a life without the fear of being killed or tortured. It is because I believe that the Belfast agreement is the way to bring that about that I hope that it will be implemented, and that the situation in Northern Ireland will be very different from that which has prevailed during the past 30 years.

Mr. Robert McCartney: It has been said that there is a very fine line between blind optimism and complete foolishness. Much of what has been said in support of the proposed order verges on the latter.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) made a quite unprovoked and personal attack on the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). We have heard suggestions that an overwhelming majority of people, particularly in the pro-Union community, voted for the agreement. It is true that, in the referendum, there was, perhaps, a slight balance in the Unionist community in favour of the Belfast agreement. What brought that about? It was brought about by pledges given by the Prime Minister in his own handwriting that certain things would occur. One of those things was that decommissioning would have to be accomplished before representatives of Sinn Fein entered into an Executive.
Decommissioning has a long history. Each position on decommissioning that has been assumed by British Governments has been resiled from. Initially, under paragraph 10 of the joint declaration of December 1993, the representatives of terror were not to be permitted even into negotiations unless they had undertaken permanently to give up violence and to engage in the process of democracy.
The Conservative Government then took up the further position that, until there was an actual handover of weaponry or a proportion of weaponry—the so-called Washington three principle—there would be no prospect of Sinn Fein and other terrorist groups being allowed into negotiations. That position was resiled from.
We then had a promise that, if Sinn Fein were allowed into the negotiations—the previous Secretary of State for Northern Ireland repeated this ad nauseam—there would be a twin-track process and that, on the day on which a political agreement was reached and when that train arrived in the station, a train would also arrive with IRA weaponry. The Belfast agreement was reached and it was subsequently approved in a referendum, but not one single round of ammunition or one single ounce of Semtex was removed. However, as I have already said, prior to the referendum, it was suggested—indeed, it was promised and pledged by the Prime Minister—that decommissioning would occur. That pledge has been broken.
Then we had a seismic shift in July of last year and, currently, we have what is described as the great breakthrough—a new seismic shift. That does not amount to a hill of beans. The very first paragraph of the IRA statement makes it absolutely clear that there will be no lasting peace until its objective of a united Ireland is achieved. That is the first and most basic prior condition in this so-called IRA statement.
The second paragraph makes it patently clear that the Belfast agreement is considered to be only what the IRA and Sinn Fein have always claimed it to be—a transitional phase en route to Irish unity. That is Sinn Fein's phrase; it is not a Unionist phrase. It is Sinn Fein's description of the agreement. The second paragraph of this magical IRA statement makes exactly the same point. If the Belfast agreement is implemented in full according to IRA specifications, it can provide the political context in an enduring process—the so-called peace process—in which the causes of conflict can be removed and the potential


for the end of the conflict provided. The IRA recognises the agreement for what it is—a transitional phase en route to Irish unity.
To what does the agreement, as a confidence-building measure, amount? The IRA will select, by location and contents, a number of its dumps—perhaps three—to make available to the two international inspectors, but those dumps will never be removed from its control. The dumps to be inspected will almost certainly represent only a tiny fraction of the IRA's total armoury, which will remain at all times immediately available.
The IRA goes on to say that if the British Government facilitate its demands, it will consider alternative modalities to those already laid out in the schemes that General de Chastelain was to supervise. At every point in the IRA statement there is a conditional clause. The fundamental condition is that, as long as the process continues to take the IRA irreversibly en route to Irish unity, its guns will remain silent. They will not be used, but they will not be destroyed or dispensed with. Why not? As long as the political process delivers the objectives for which the guns have been used, they will remain silent, but as soon as the process ceases to provide that irreversible thrust towards Irish unity, the guns will be available.
It has been suggested that people are cynical. I have lived all my life—64 years—in Northern Ireland. My son is married to a Catholic; I have full cousins who are Catholics; I have employed Catholics and I have been employed by Catholics and the Catholic Church. I have no objection to republicanism, although I do not share its views, or to nationalism, but I have a fundamental democratic objection to sharing power with gangsters, thugs and gunmen who threaten the principles of democracy with force. While the guns remain silent, their threat is none the less powerful.
A report in Dublin's Sunday Business Post said that the true basis of the IRA's agreement is that three or four weeks ago at Chequers, representatives of the IRA and Sinn Fein met the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister and made it clear that, unless their terms are accepted, there will be a renewed bombing campaign on the mainland during next year's elections.
I believe, as do many people in Northern Ireland, that the fundamental policy driving the whole peace process has little to do with political settlement in Northern Ireland; the imperative is to keep bombs off the mainland at any cost. That policy of appeasement will continue and will be leeched upon by the IRA. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but I do not share the optimism of other hon. Members. I sincerely wish that I could do so, but I think that it will prove to be misplaced. The order merely extends over years the time in which the representatives of terror can toy with the principles of democracy.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) has excelled himself by being even more negative than usual. I sometimes think that if he won the lottery, he would complain that the cheque was sent by second-class post. On a more serious point, it is easy to be cynical and doubtful, and it is also cheap, but it is important to find

ways forward. It is extraordinary that any hon. Member can make a lengthy speech without once referring to the great gains that have been made in the past few years, which have been much more peaceful, allowing all the people of Northern Ireland to live in better circumstances.
To take up a point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), when the IRA leadership said on 6 May that it would put arms beyond use—which it has never said before—it would have been easy to reply, "Does it mean it? How can we prove it?" I should point out that the IRA has been well aware of international criticism of its slowness in moving forward. People have asked, "Why doesn't it get on with it? What is the big difficulty?" It has been aware of that. If its actions were to turn out grudging or there were attempts to deceive the international inspectorate, it would lose credibility in the international community generally. So, having made such a statement, it has to be able to move forward.
People have been talking as if the IRA were one monolithic block of opinion, but none of us should underestimate the difficulties of the peace-mongers in the IRA and Sinn Fein in determining to move along the paths of peace. We should not underestimate what they would have been up against among some of their more hard-line colleagues in achieving such movement. It is therefore important to get behind the statement and to ensure that it is acted on.
I was wryly amused by the fact that, after commenting in the previous debate that, although over the issue of flags the SDLP would be in a difficult position, it was easy to predict that all parties would encounter difficulties over one issue or another, just a few minutes later the hon. Member for Belfast, East did his utmost to make life difficult for the Ulster Unionist leadership—not because he thinks that it is constructive to do so, but because it is simple vote-grabbing from another segment of Unionism. That is truly deplorable because the leadership of the Ulster Unionists has been extremely positive and deserves a lot of credit.
If the heart of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) will stand it, I will say that I agree with much of what he said. His comments were very constructive. Yes, we must recognise that breakaway groups from the IRA will hold on to their arms, but we cannot hold the IRA responsible for the actions of such groups any more than we can hold Unionist Members in this Chamber responsible for the actions of loyalist extremists and breakaway groups. If we do not grab hold of this opportunity, there will be difficulty putting pressure on all those groups to come up with the goods and to follow the path of peace, which is obviously what the people of Northern Ireland want.
Earlier today, I listened to a little of the debate in another place, in which some extraordinary comments were made. One of their lordships said that the Minister was looking on the matter with rose-tinted spectacles simply because he wished to take up the prospect of moving forward which the IRA has opened up. A baroness whose name I did not catch questioned whether a Finn and a South African could do the job, which was an extraordinary thing to say. She asked whether the inspectors had ever seen Semtex or handled a gun. I should imagine, having been highly involved in the politics of South Africa over the past decade or two, they


most certainly had. Those are the sort of nonsensical arguments that one hopes not to hear, and we did not hear them in this Chamber.
It has been said that an unknown quantity of arms will be held by individuals on both sides. I do not know how much. I dare say that the police in Northern Ireland have a pretty good idea and could estimate the amount reasonably accurately. Clearly, we must consider that in future, because it is of course unacceptable to deal with arms dumps but leave vast quantities of arms in the hands of individuals, regardless of whether they are political extremists. There could be another madman like Mr. Hamilton in Scotland. The sooner that we take arms out of civil society the better—whether in Scotland, Northern Ireland or the United States. We need to move forward on getting rid of arms.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) (No. 2) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

COMPANIES

That the draft Companies Act 1985 (Audit Exemption) (Amendment) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 3rd May, be approved.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Question agreed to.

Autism

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), and to my other parliamentary colleagues for keeping you all here at this time of night. However, having apologised, let me point out that this week is autism awareness week, so it is important to highlight autism and the important issues surrounding the condition. I am therefore delighted to have obtained tonight's Adjournment debate.
I am especially pleased because on Monday evening, in the Jubilee Room off Westminster Hall, we held the public launch of the parliamentary all-party autism group, which I have the honour to chair. My hon. Friend the Minister has already addressed the group, and I am grateful to him for doing so. Its membership, which is still growing, includes more than 130 parliamentarians from all parties and both Houses. The group has received several dozen letters of support from parliamentarians who are not able to join, including members of all the Front-Bench teams and the Prime Minister himself. That is a remarkable display of support for a new specialist parliamentary group.
The group is being generously sponsored by the Shirley Foundation—it is proper to place that support on the record and to acknowledge the generosity of the foundation and its founder, Dame Stephanie Shirley. Also providing support and advice for the group is a team comprising people from the National Autistic Society, the Parents Autism Campaign for Education, leading academics, and other individuals with an interest in autism.
All those parliamentarians and strangers have come together because of their deep conviction that the causes and occurrence of and the support for autism require urgent review, and that such a review will reveal a need for the Government to increase the level of support available to autistic people. For the sake of clarity, let me state that, tonight, I shall use the word "incidence" to indicate the annual occurrence of autism within a given population, and "prevalence" to indicate the total number of autistic people in the population at any one time. "Autism" will be used to refer to the whole spectrum of autistic disorders, including Asperger syndrome.
There is a great deal of anecdotal evidence that the incidence of autism is increasing, and several studies by scientists of repute point to an increase. One such study suggested that, in one region of the United Kingdom, the increase in incidence might be as high as 25 per cent. compounded annually. In passing, I note that, in its 1998-99 annual report, the special educational needs tribunal reported a 360 per cent. increase in hearings related to autism during the preceding four years, making autism the second most common disability with which the tribunal deals.
Some of the perceived increase is, no doubt, because of improved diagnosis or a broader classification of autism. However, in my view and, more significantly, in the view of most of the experts to whom I have spoken, the


underlying incidence of autism is increasing and the apparent increase is not just the product of better diagnosis. Some factor is causing the increase. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that many parents and even some academics believe that the mumps, measles and rubella vaccine or other vaccines are responsible; most clinicians and scientists disagree.
I have written to several leading academics and some degree of consensus has emerged that an individual's potential to develop autism involves several genes, not one; and that different factors might be at work in establishing that potential. The expression of autism must be triggered in an individual with a predisposition towards it, and several different triggers may be involved.
The condition may arise, therefore, in different people as a result of different mechanisms. At this stage, there are several environmental factors, including the vaccination programme, that cannot be ruled out as factors for at least a subgroup of the population of people who have autism.
Given that complexity and the view in the scientific community, it must surely be the duty of Government to initiate studies that can finally decide the controversy. We need to answer the question, "Is the incidence of autism increasing?" If the answer is yes, we must isolate the factors that are at work.
It must also be the job of Government to ensure that support for autistic people is planned for. To do so, we must know the prevalence of the condition. On 14 January 1999, in a written answer to me, the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), told me that his Department did not collate data in respect of the number of autistic people, but relied on local authorities to do so.
I can tell my hon. Friend that recent inquiries by individuals and voluntary organisations indicate that many local authorities do not collate that data, so we do not know, nationally or locally, how many autistic people there are. How can we plan adequately, when we do not know how many people we are planning for?
Let me summarise. We do not know how many autistic people there are and how many there will be. We cannot therefore be sure whether we as a society are doing something to cause the condition. We do not know whether we could reduce the incidence by doing something differently, by stopping doing something or by starting to do something. We cannot plan adequately for supporting autistic people, as we do not know accurately, locally or nationally, how many people have the condition.
We can make some estimates. A study by Wing and Gould carried out in Camberwell was published in 1979. Another study in Gothenburg by Ehlers and Gillberg was published in 1993. Using those studies, the National Autistic Society estimates that 91 in 10,000 people have conditions on the autistic spectrum.
At the launch of the all-party group on Monday night, Dr. Fiona Scott of Cambridge university announced her recent findings, which are to be published in The Lancet in the next week or two. They indicate that one in 175 children in Cambridgeshire is autistic.
Those are frightening figures. Some people with an interest in the condition have started to speak of an epidemic. The figures must surely concern and may even

frighten the Government. The figures suggest that on average, every English and Northern Irish Member of Parliament has more than 800 constituents with an autistic spectrum disorder. Every Scottish or Welsh Member of Parliament must have more than 600 autistic constituents. Accurate figures are needed to plan support and care. The Government should initiate such research urgently.
If those figures alone do not frighten my hon. Friend, let me tell him the recent estimate of the cost of autism. The real cost of autism, we all know, is in heartache, but let us consider the financial implications. The average lifetime cost of supporting an autistic person has been estimated at £2.9 million. That excludes the loss to the economy as a result of autistic people who cannot live independently and earn their own living. The total cost to the economy is about £1 billion a year. Those figures should start appearing on the Chancellor's radar screen, never mind my hon. Friend's in the Department of Health.
If the condition were better understood and causal factors could be reduced, the costs could be reduced. If those who develop the condition receive early diagnosis and intervention, and if they get the right support and the right education package, diet and health care, many will make huge progress and will eventually be able to live independent and productive lives.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I agree with him about the importance of early intervention, but on the basis of inquiries that I have made in my area, following a number of case studies brought to me by a couple with an autistic child, I can tell him that early intervention is not taking place in my area because of the difficulty in recruiting specialist staff, the lack of co-ordination between various parts of the health service and between the NHS and the education service, and the failure of one body to take a sufficient lead in promoting early intervention.

Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of my key points is that, without planning and co-ordinated work, there will be cases such as my hon. Friend described in every constituency and every hon. Member will come across constituents in exactly that predicament.
We need good planning. However, without accurate data, it is difficult to ascertain how we can achieve that. Diagnosis and treatment are patchy at best, and regional standards are highly variable. Best world practice should be identified and used throughout the United Kingdom. If diets or nutritional supplements are shown to have benefits, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence should say so, and health authorities should make them available on the national health service.
Educational provision is often poor and inappropriate. People with Asperger syndrome are often very bright but they are treated in the same way as those with profound learning difficulties. Many parents have to fight like tigers to have their children statemented and to find an appropriate school place.
One of my constituents was in a mainstream school until he was bullied. He was transferred to a special school, where he had a violent episode, which was almost certainly the result of the upheaval. He was excluded and is no longer acceptable in any school. He is effectively a prisoner in his own home. That is true not only of him but of his parents because they have to stay at home and look after him.
Best practice must be identified and implemented throughout the United Kingdom. I am pleased that the Government have already been involved in setting up a working group to establish and disseminate best practice on education for autistic children. However, there is a long way to go.
Residential provision for school children and autistic adults is often far from family and of variable quality. We must make sure that high quality provision is plentiful and available. Local government has statutory responsibility to provide for the care of autistic people, but the care is often unplanned and of poor quality. If local authorities do not even count the people they care for, how can they plan it adequately?
Regional variations must be ironed out and local authorities called to account. If ever a subject required joined-up Government, it is autism. We desperately need research into incidence and prevalence, followed by joined-up planning of services throughout the UK. The Department of Health, the Department for Education and Employment, local government, voluntary organisations and charities, the Medical Research Council and other research funders, the clinical, academic and scientific communities must be brought together to work on the matter.
Autism is a huge and growing problem. It causes misery, heartache and massive costs. I know from previous meetings with my hon. Friend the Minister that he and the Government recognise and sympathise with the problems. I hope to hear soon that they will act aggressively to deal with some of them. The misery caused by the condition has sometimes brought tears to my eyes. It is difficult enough to experience a parent's pain second hand, but imagine the stress and distress that the families of some autistic people experience as they fight for diagnosis, battle for a statement for their child, struggle for treatment, education and support for a loved one. Sometimes they cannot see the light at the end of the tunnel.
There is no reason why we should not aspire to the best standards in the world: the best practice in diagnosis, the best standard of treatment, the best practice in early intervention, education, support and long-term care.
If I had one wish—I do not expect my hon. Friend to grant it tonight because that is not the way in which Adjournment debates work—it would be for him to tackle prevalence and incidence by initiating the required research for accurate data. He could instruct local authorities to collate their data using a standard diagnostic model and report them to him annually. That quick and cheap fix would at least get us started. With the research councils, he could also plan appropriate studies of incidence and potential causal factors. They would take much longer, but the sooner they start, the sooner they would report.
If I had a second wish, it would be for my hon. Friend to pull the other Departments together, begin a programme to identify best practice in health, education and support for autistic people and consider how and where we could introduce change. Such a project may even be a suitable candidate for Cabinet Office co-ordination as it would cross so many departmental boundaries. If he cannot give such commitments tonight, perhaps he could offer them to me in writing in a few days, after he has discussed the report of the debate with his officials.
Those wishes are not unreasonable. I hope that my hon. Friend will grant them to me and, more importantly, to autistic people and their families around the country. The problem is massive and growing. The real cost is heartache and blighted lives. Autism represents an urgent case for action.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) on securing a debate on what every Member of the House accepts are important issues. Many Members, including me, have recently met parents of autistic children in their constituencies and heard a familiar litany of concern about the provision and adequacy of services. Let me make it clear that we take these matters very seriously. We are happy to work with others to make progress on a range of issues to improve the services that we provide for autistic people.
Before I respond to some of the specific concerns raised by my hon. Friend, I pay tribute—in autism awareness week—to the valuable work done by the National Autistic Society and other organisations to raise awareness of the needs of children and adults with autistic spectrum conditions. The formation of the new all-party autism group is testimony to their effectiveness in bringing together those with a common interest in improving services for people with autistic spectrum disorder. I look forward to working with the all-party group. Over the years, the Department of Health has given substantial grants to support the National Autistic Society's work and, together with colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment, officials continue to engage in dialogue over the full range of concerns. That will continue.
We are all aware that the number of children identified as having autism is increasing. My hon. Friend reminded us of that, although the full explanation is not clear. It may be due, at least in part, to welcome improvements in diagnosis and to changes in the way in which autistic spectrum disorder is identified. I acknowledge that autism is a matter of increasing concern in this country and abroad. There have been considerable increases in awareness and our knowledge and understanding continue to grow, so we need to ensure that policy is properly re-evaluated in the light of the latest evidence.
As my hon. Friend said, estimates of the prevalence of autistic spectrum disorder vary. That is partly due to variations in definition, although most people seem to agree that the prevalence of classic autism is four to five cases per 10,000 of the population. The prevalence of Asperger syndrome is less certain. A recent estimate given to the Department is that it appears to affect 29 children in every 10,000. The prevalence of all autistic spectrum disorders is more difficult to estimate, but, as he informed us, it could be as high as 91 per cases per 10,000.
The Department has recently been in dialogue with the National Autistic Society over prevalence—about which my hon. Friend, like me, is substantially concerned—and we look forward to the meeting of experts, which will discuss that issue and which we understand the society will convene in the near future. We shall consider what further action we should take in the light of the meeting. We recognise that we need to know more about the


prevalence of autism and any changes in prevalence. This is a complex issue, as he rightly said, and we need to work together to identify the best way forward.
Establishing the cause of autism will help to prevent, identify and treat that distressing condition. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that, last month, the Medical Research Council, which is funded by the Government, announced that it has provided £344,000 to fund one of the largest autism studies ever attempted.
The two-year study, to be led by Professor Andrew Hall of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, will attempt to find out what causes the condition. The researchers will study whether autistic children have a history of other conditions or medical problems, such as problems during birth. They will look at whether viral infections in the womb or soon after birth appear to play a role in producing autism. By examining a representative sample of health records drawn from more than 2 million people registered with 300 general practices across the UK, the researchers will also be able to examine any possible association between autism and the MMR vaccine. That substantial piece of research will, I hope, constitute a landmark that will help us to understand autism better.
Experts agree that treatment for autistic children should preferably be begun early. My hon. Friend made that point. The Government recognise the importance of collaboration between health, social services and education agencies to facilitate early identification and effective intervention, and we are acting in a number of key areas to ensure such facilitation. We have launched the quality protects programme, involving investment of £375 million to improve services radically for children in need. The programme is developing and supporting partnerships between local authorities, health services and the voluntary sector. My hon. Friend called for all those things. It is also improving assessment, care planning, record keeping and quality assurance systems. Children with autism will be among those benefiting from this major new investment.
The Government are also investing £452 million in sure start, which involves 250 local programmes in deprived areas for families with a child under four. Two of the key programme objectives are to improve children's social and emotional development by providing early identification of, and support for, children with emotional and behavioural difficulties, and to improve children's ability to learn—for example, through early identification and support of children with learning difficulties.
The Government have also increased investment in child and adolescent mental health services by £90 million between 1999 and 2001-02 to improve the provision of appropriate, high-quality care and treatment for children and young people, by building up locally based services. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) said that he felt that services in his constituency were not adequate. If he is prepared to write to me, I shall be happy to look into the circumstances that he has described: they are clearly not acceptable.
National priorities guidance issued to health and social services makes it clear that they should be improving staffing levels and training provision, and also improving

liaison between primary care, specialist child and adolescent mental health services, social services and other agencies.
We are particularly concerned—my hon. Friend did the House a service in drawing attention to this—about reports of delays that beset families who are worried about their child's development. Sometimes there is insufficient co-operation between child development centres and child and adolescent mental health services. While families in some parts of the country must put up with delays of months and even years, in other parts of the country there has been joint planning between health and social services, the child development centre and CAMHS, so that children with suspected communication difficulties can have prompt access to local assessment services.
We must recognise that there are difficulties in recruiting child psychiatrists and other mental health professionals in some parts of the country, but it is clearly not acceptable for families to wait for long periods for assessment and treatment, which often represent the crucial stage in a young person's development. CAMHS development strategies are now required from health and social services authorities, and will be expected to tackle problems of delay. If we can provide a prompt and effective service in one part of the country, it should be possible to do so everywhere.
By improving the general level of services for children, including those with disabilities or mental health problems, we are trying to provide the infrastructure to deliver better services for children and young people with autism. Similarly, the steps that we are taking to modernise health and social services for adults, and to make them more responsive to individual need, will benefit autistic people and their families. For instance, the new flexibilities introduced in the Health Act 1999 should help to ensure closer co-operation between the various agencies involved in identifying and meeting the needs of autistic people. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet was entirely right that the best services would be properly joined up and linked across local organisational boundaries.
Within the context of our more general initiatives, we have been taking action to improve services for autistic people: both those with a learning disability and those without. For example, in 1998, we published "Signposts for Success", good practice guidance on commissioning and providing health services for children and adults with learning disabilities, including those with autism. Last year, we followed that up with "Once a Day", a booklet setting out good practice for primary health care teams, which includes a reminder to those working in the teams that autistic disorders occur frequently with a learning disability.
Last year, as I am sure my hon. Friend will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced that we were starting work on developing a national learning disability strategy. That strategy will cover everyone with a learning disability: children as well as adults. Many, but of course not all, will also have autism.
We are involving a wide range of interests in the development of the strategy through working groups, seminars and formal and informal meetings with individuals and organisations. Later in the summer, we will consult the National Autistic Society specifically on children's issues relating to the strategy.
Although that will be primarily a strategy for health and social services, clearly, it is important that the needs of people with learning disabilities should be addressed as a whole. Consequently, we are involving other Government Departments, as my hon. Friend wants us to do, including the Department for Education and Employment, the Department of Social Security and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, in the strategy's development. Our aim is to launch it by the end of the year.
We have been undertaking some work on the needs of autistic people who do not have a learning disability. Late last year, we commissioned Dr. Tony Holland to undertake a review of the current issues surrounding the diagnosis, management and treatment of children and adults with Asperger syndrome. We have received his report and are considering his recommendations. The views of the National Autistic Society, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and other interested organisations will be fully taken into account as we decide on the way forward.
There are many other things that I should like to say, but, sadly, I think that I will not be able to say all of them. I accept my hon. Friend's point about the importance of education services and the need to ensure that the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health work closely in continuing to find ways to improve the services that we provide to children with autism and to their families. There is much work for us to do in that area.
My hon. Friend might be interested to know that the report by the National Autistic Society entitled "Inclusion and Autism: Is It Working?" found that an increasing number of parents of autistic children said that they were satisfied with the education offered to their children. Compared with two years ago, 40 per cent. more parents

said that they were satisfied with their child's education. Eighty per cent. said that their child was better served in mainstream schools.
My hon. Friend has done his constituents, the House and everyone with autism a service in raising those important issues. It is clear from what he said—and probably from what I have said, too—that, although we have made a positive start, there is still, as I am sure all hon. Members who are present in the Chamber will accept, much to do. We accept that point. We are looking seriously at the issues that he has raised, particularly issues about the data with which we can better plan services.
My hon. Friend is right. If we are to develop effective policies and services locally, and to ensure that the extra investment that is going in is effectively spent, we will need better information about the prevalence of autism. As I have said, we are working closely with the National Autistic Society to find the best way in which to take that work forward.
We accept that that is a perfectly valid criticism of the present situation. It is not a good situation in which to find ourselves. Obviously, good research information is the essential underpinning to ensure that policy development is effective and well targeted, but, with his support and that of other hon. Members, we have a special opportunity to develop services effectively.
We are certainly up for that. As I have said, we look forward to working with all people of good will who share our ambition to improve the range of services that we provide to people with autism and their families. That is the right thing to do. It is certainly what the Government want to do.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.